Key result
Invasive aortic and brachial pulse pressures similarly predict ~11% greater MACE risk per 10 mmHg.
Why the study?
High blood pressure is the leading modifiable risk factor for CVD and mortality, but the prognostic relevance of invasive central versus peripheral blood pressure for predicting MACEs remains unexplored.
Does invasive aortic blood pressure measurement provide better prognostic value for MACEs than invasive brachial blood pressure measurement in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography?
Cohort (n=238)
Does invasive aortic blood pressure measurement provide better prognostic value for MACEs than invasive brachial blood pressure measurement in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography?
Hazard Ratio: 1.11 (95% CI 1.01–1.22)
p-value: p=0.03
Invasive aortic and brachial pulse pressures show similar prognostic value for MACEs in older, higher-risk patients, suggesting measurement at either site is clinically valuable.
Similar associations support brachial pulse pressure for MACE risk stratification; leaves open whether invasive aortic measurements add incremental value.
BACKGROUND: High blood pressure (BP) is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. The prognostic relevance of invasive central versus peripheral BP for predicting major adverse CVD events (MACEs) remains unexplored. This exploratory study examined the prognostic associations of invasive central and peripheral BP measurement in a cohort of older patients with higher CVD risk. METHODS: In 238 patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (mean age 69 ± 11 years, 72% males), invasive aortic and brachial BP were measured sequentially. Patients were followed for 37 ± 23 months for MACEs, defined as a composite of CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure. RESULTS: Both aortic and brachial invasive pulse pressures (PP) were independently associated with MACEs [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) per 10 mmHg increase 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, P = 0.03, and 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.21, P = 0.04, respectively]. Associations of aortic [aHR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.17, P = 0.07] and brachial (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98-1.17, P = 0.13] systolic BPs were borderline. Differences in receiver operating characteristic performance between aortic and brachial PPs (area under the curve difference = 0.02) were not significant. Optimal thresholds for brachial PP to predict MACEs were 10 mmHg higher than aortic PP. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory cohort of older, higher-risk patients, invasive aortic and brachial PPs showed broadly similar associations with MACEs. Although numerically different, aortic PP appears to offer negligible incremental prognostic value beyond brachial PP, suggesting that measurement at either site would be clinically valuable. These findings warrant confirmation in adequately powered studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pucci et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in High cardiovascular disease risk (n=238). Invasive aortic pulse pressure vs. Invasive brachial pulse pressure was evaluated on MACEs (composite of CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p=0.03). Invasive aortic and brachial pulse pressures showed similar prognostic associations with MACEs (aHR per 10 mmHg increase 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22 vs aHR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.21).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: