Central-to-peripheral blood pressure amplification: role of the recording site, technology, analysis approach, and calibration scheme in invasive and non-invasive data agreement

Abstract

BackgroundSystolic blood pressure amplification (SBPA) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) can independently predict cardiovascular damage and mortality. A wide range of methods are used for the non-invasive estimation of SBPA and PPA. The most accurate non-invasive method for obtaining SBPA and/or PPA remains unknown.AimThis study aims to evaluate the agreement between the SBPA and PPA values that are invasively and non-invasively obtained using different (1) measurement sites (radial, brachial, carotid), (2) measuring techniques (tonometry, oscillometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), (3) pulse waveform analysis approaches, and (4) calibration methods [systo-diastolic vs. approaches using brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (BP)], with the latter calculated using different equations or measured by oscillometry.MethodsInvasive aortic and brachial pressure (catheterism) and non-invasive aortic and peripheral (brachial, radial) BP were simultaneously obtained from 34 subjects using different methodologies, analysis methods, measuring sites, and calibration methods. SBPA and PPA were quantified. Concordance correlation and the Bland–Altman analysis were performed.Results(1) In general, SBPA and PPA levels obtained with non-invasive approaches were not associated with those recorded invasively. (2) The different non-invasive approaches led to (extremely) dissimilar results. In general, non-invasive measurements underestimated SBPA and PPA; the higher the invasive SBPA (or PPA), the greater the underestimation. (3) None of the calibration schemes, which considered non-invasive brachial BP to estimate SBPA or PPA, were better than the others. (4) SBPA and PPA levels obtained from radial artery waveform analysis (tonometry) (5) and common carotid artery ultrasound recordings and brachial artery waveform analysis, respectively, minimized the mean errors.ConclusionsOverall, the findings showed that (i) SBPA and PPA indices are not “synonymous” and (ii) non-invasive approaches would fail to accurately determine invasive SBPA or PPA levels, regardless of the recording site, analysis, and calibration methods. Non-invasive measurements generally underestimated SBPA and PPA, and the higher the invasive SBPA or PPA, the higher the underestimation. There was not a calibration scheme better than the others. Consequently, our study emphasizes the strong need to be critical of measurement techniques, to have methodological transparency, and to have expert consensus for non-invasive assessment of SBPA and PPA.