Key result
VascAssist 2 automated central blood pressure measurement showed a mean systolic overestimation of 4 ± 12 mmHg versus invasive measurements and 4 ± 4 mmHg versus applanation tonometry.
Why the study?
Applanation tonometry accuracy can be affected by calibration and operator training, prompting evaluation of the automated oscillometric VascAssist 2 device.
Does automated noninvasive central blood pressure measurement using VascAssist 2 accurately estimate central blood pressure compared to invasive measurements and applanation tonometry in patients?
Observational (n=225)
Does automated noninvasive central blood pressure measurement using VascAssist 2 accurately estimate central blood pressure compared to invasive measurements and applanation tonometry in patients?
VascAssist 2 provides accurate automated noninvasive central blood pressure estimates comparable to invasive measurements and applanation tonometry, without requiring operator training.
Requires caution interpreting automated central BP values; leaves open utility for guiding therapy without further validation.
BACKGROUND: Central blood pressure becomes increasingly accepted as an important diagnostic and therapeutic parameter. Accuracy of widespread applanation tonometry can be affected by calibration and operator training. To overcome this, we aimed to evaluate novel VascAssist 2 using automated oscillometric radial pulse wave analysis and a refined multi-compartment model of the arterial tree. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five patients were prospectively enrolled. Invasive aortic root measurements served as reference in MEASURE-cBP 1 (n = 106) whereas applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor) was used in MEASURE-cBP 2 (n = 119). RESULTS: In MEASURE-cBP 1, we found a mean overestimation for systolic values of 4 ± 12 mmHg (3 ± 10%) and 6 ± 10 mmHg (9 ± 14%) for diastolic values. Diabetes mellitus and low blood pressure were associated with larger variation. In MEASURE-cBP 2, mean overestimation of systolic values was 4 ± 4 mmHg (4 ± 4%) and 1 ± 4 mmHg (1 ± 7%) of diastolic values. Arrhythmia was significantly more frequent in invalid measurements (61 vs. 18%, P < 0.0001) which were most often due to a low quality index of SphygmoCor. CONCLUSIONS: Central blood pressure estimates using VascAssist 2 can be considered at least as accurate as available techniques, even including diabetic patients. In direct comparison, automated measurement considerably facilitates application not requiring operator training and can be reliably applied even in patients with arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trinkmann et al. (2020) reported an observational. VascAssist 2 (automated oscillometric radial pulse wave analysis) vs. Invasive aortic root measurements and applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor) was evaluated on Mean overestimation of systolic and diastolic central blood pressure. VascAssist 2 automated central blood pressure measurement showed a mean systolic overestimation of 4 ± 12 mmHg versus invasive measurements and 4 ± 4 mmHg versus applanation tonometry.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: