Validation of the central blood pressure estimation by the SphygmoCor system in Chinese

Zuo, Junli; Li, Yan; Yan, Zijun; Zhang, Ruiyan; Shen, Wei-Feng; Zhu, Dingliang; Gao, Pingjin; Chu, Shaoli

doi:10.1097/mbp.0b013e3283386866

Cited by 33 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another technique consists in directly analyzing radial PWs after calibration and deriving central SBP from the late second systolic radial shoulder (rSBP2) (Pauca et al 2004, Munir et al 2008, Hickson et al 2009, Kips et al 2011, Takazawa et al 2012, Lin et al 2012, Norton et al 2012. A validated transfer function can also be applied on calibrated radial PWs to estimate central pressure curve (Chen et al 1997, Pauca et al 2001, Ding et al 2011, Sharman et al 2006, Zuo et al 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulse wave analysis with two tonometric devices: a comparison study

Agnoletti

Millasseau²,

Topouchian

et al. 2014

Physiol. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulse wave analysis is a pivotal tool to estimate central haemodynamic parameters. Available commercial devices use applanation tonometry and have been validated against invasive catheterism. We previously observed differences on a radial second systolic peak (rSPB2) between two commonly used devices: SphygmoCor (AtCor, Australia) and PulsePen (DiaTecne, Italy). The aim of our study was to further quantify differences in radial and carotid signals from the two devices.We measured radial and carotid waveforms in 38 patients with minimal changes between systolic, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate.rSBP2, mean pressure, form factor and augmentation index were different with SphygmoCor providing lower values (mean differences: 2.2 ± 3.8 mmHg; 1.5 ± 1.7 mmHg; 3.2 ± 3.5%; 4.2 ± 8.4%, respectively). Carotid augmentation index and form factor were similar. However carotid systolic pressure (cSBP) from PulsePen was higher than cSBP from SphygmoCor (2.7 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). For both carotid and radial signals, harmonics moduli were similar across the spectrum with the exception of the 1st harmonic.PulsePen and SphygmoCor sensors are not equivalent and provide different wave shapes despite similar harmonics content with more discrepancy on radial derived parameters than on carotid derived parameters. Further studies are required to compare invasive pressure parameters to indices derived from these two devices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulse wave analysis with two tonometric devices: a comparison study

Agnoletti

Millasseau²,

Topouchian

et al. 2014

Physiol. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Validation of data, as well as the clinical utility of these devices, varies ( 35 ); when the radial waveform was calibrated with the oscillometric brachial pressures, the SphygmoCor system could not provide an accurate estimation of central BPs measured invasively. The inherent error in the sphygmomanometric measurement of cuff pressure was the major limiting factor and not the use of the transfer function in clinical settings ( 36 ) when compared with invasive values. Recent studies have shown that among different calibration approaches of central aortic blood pressure, including systo-diastolic (SD), calculated mean (CM), and oscillometric mean (OscM) ( 37 – 39 ), CM and OscM were preferred.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Risk of Target Organ Damage in Different Phenotypes of Arterial Stiffness and Central Aortic Blood Pressure

Bai

Wang

Cheng

et al. 2022

Front. Cardiovasc. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the risk of target organ damage (TOD) in different groups based on carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and central aortic blood pressure (CBP) in different populations.MethodsThe study cohort was divided into four groups according to the status of cfPWV and CBP [Group (cfPWV/CBP): high cfPWV and high CBP; Group (cfPWV): high cfPWV and normal CBP; Group (CBP): normal cfPWV and high CBP; Group (control): normal cfPWV and normal CBP]. TOD was determined by the assessment of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) abnormality, chronic kidney disease (CKD), microalbuminuria, and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).ResultsA total of 1,280 patients (mean age 53.14 ± 12.76 years, 64.1% male patients) were recruited in this study. Regarding Group (control) as reference, LVH was significantly higher in Group (cfPWV) and Group (CBP) [OR 2.406, 95% CI (1.301–4.452), P < 0.05; OR 2.007, 95% CI (1.335–3.017), P < 0.05]; microalbuminuria was significantly higher in Group (cfPWV/CBP) and Group (CBP) [OR 3.219, 95% CI (1.630–6.359), P < 0.05; OR 3.156, 95% CI (1.961–5.079), P < 0.05]. With age stratified by 60 years, the risk of CKD was significantly higher in Group (cfPWV/CBP) [OR 4.019, 95% CI (1.439–11.229), P < 0.05].ConclusionDifferent phenotypes based on the status of cfPWV and CBP were associated with different TOD. Individuals with both cfPWV and CBP elevated have a higher risk of microalbuminuria.

show abstract

“…In the older group, AIx and PPA change little while aortic PWV increases markedly, suggesting that the rise in AP is driven by an earlier return of the reflected wave and a less compliant aorta rather than by predominant changes in the magnitude of wave reflection [22]. Finally, the controversy of generalized transfer function in radial applanation tonometry is that non-invasive BP recordings in the brachial artery are used to calibrate the radial pulse wave [27][28][29][30]. The output error at the aorta is associated with the input errors at the radial artery, which is attributable to the under-or over-estimation of NIM aortic SBP and DBP compared to invasively measured, depending Table 4 Odds ratios for the association between the augmentation index per 5% and pulse pressure amplification per 0.05 and the risk of 3-vessel disease according to the age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…on which non-invasive technique is applied [31], and the presence of brachial-to-radial pressure amplification [32]. Consequently, the NIM aortic PP is usually underestimated [28][29][30] compared to invasively measured aortic PP. Particularly, brachial-to-radial pressure amplification is lower and underestimation of aortic PP is more profound in older groups than in younger groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%