Impact of Methodological and Calibration Approach on the Association of Central and Peripheral Systolic Blood Pressure with Cardiac Structure and Function in Children, Adolescents and Adults

Impact of a cuff-based device calibration method on the agreement between invasive and noninvasive aortic and brachial pressure

INTRODUCTION

Brachial cuff-based methods are increasingly used to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP). However, there are several unresolved issues.

AIMS

to determine to what extent the scheme used to calibrate brachial records (1) can affect noninvasive obtained aoSBP levels, and consequently, the level of agreement with the aoSBP recorded invasively, and (2) how different ways of calibrating ultimately impact the relationship between aoSBP and cardiac properties.

METHODS

brachial and aortic blood pressure (BP) was simultaneously obtained by invasive (catheterisation) and noninvasive (brachial oscillometric-device) methods (89 subjects). aoSBP was noninvasive obtained using three calibration schemes: 'SD': diastolic and systolic brachial BP, 'C': diastolic and calculated brachial mean BP (bMBP), 'Osc': diastolic and oscillometry-derived bMBP. Agreement between invasive and noninvasive aoSBP, and associations between BP and echocardiographic-derived parameters were analysed.

CONCLUSIONS

'C' and 'SD' schemes generated aoSBP levels lower than those recorded invasively (mean errors: 6.9 and 10.1 mmHg); the opposite was found when considering 'Osc'(mean error: -11.4 mmHg). As individuals had higher invasive aoSBP, the three calibration schemes increasingly underestimated aoSBP levels; and viceversa. The 'range' of invasive aoSBP in which the calibration schemes reach the lowest error level (-5-5 mmHg) is different: 'C': 103-131 mmHg; 'Osc': 159-201 mmHg; 'SD':101-124 mmHg. The calibration methods allowed reaching levels of association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics, somewhat lower, but very similar to those obtained when considering invasive aoSBP. There is no evidence of a clear superiority of one calibration method over another when considering the association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics.

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

Background

Systolic 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.

Aim

This 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.

Methods

Invasive 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.

Conclusions

Overall, 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.

Direct estimation of central aortic pressure from measured or quantified mean and diastolic brachial blood pressure: agreement with invasive records

Background

Recently it has been proposed a new approach to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP) without the need for specific devices, operator-dependent techniques and/or complex wave propagation models/algorithms. The approach proposes aoSBP can be quantified from brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (bDBP, bMBP) as: aoSBP = bMBP2/bDBP. It remains to be assessed to what extent the method and/or equation used to obtain the bMBP levels considered in aoSBP calculation may affect the estimated aoSBP, and consequently the agreement with aoSBP invasively recorded.

Methods

Brachial and aortic pressure were simultaneously obtained invasively (catheterization) and non-invasively (brachial oscillometry) in 89 subjects. aoSBP was quantified in seven different ways, using measured (oscillometry-derived) and calculated (six equations) mean blood pressure (MBP) levels. The agreement between invasive and estimated aoSBP was analyzed (Concordance correlation coefficient; Bland-Altman Test).

Conclusions

The ability of the equation "aoSBP = MBP2/DBP" to (accurately) estimate (error <5 mmHg) invasive aoSBP depends on the method and equation considered to determine bMBP, and on the aoSBP levels (proportional error). Oscillometric bMBP and/or approaches that consider adjustments for heart rate or a form factor ∼40% (instead of the usual 33%) would be the best way to obtain the bMBP levels to be used to calculate aoSBP.

Non-invasive central aortic pressure measurement: what limits its application in clinical practice?

The following article highlights the need for methodological transparency and consensus for an accurate and non-invasive assessment of central aortic blood pressure (aoBP), which would contribute to increasing its validity and value in both clinical and physiological research settings. The recording method and site, the mathematical model used to quantify aoBP, and mainly the method applied to calibrate pulse waveforms are essential when estimating aoBP and should be considered when analyzing and/or comparing data from different works, populations and/or obtained with different approaches. Up to now, many questions remain concerning the incremental predictive ability of aoBP over peripheral blood pressure and the possible role of aoBP-guided therapy in everyday practice. In this article, we focus on "putting it on the table" and discussing the main aspects analyzed in the literature as potential determinants of the lack of consensus on the non-invasive measurement of aoBP.

Brachial Blood Pressure Invasively and Non-Invasively Obtained Using Oscillometry and Applanation Tonometry: Impact of Mean Blood Pressure Equations and Calibration Schemes on Agreement Levels

The use of oscillometric methods to determine brachial blood pressure (bBP) can lead to a systematic underestimation of the invasively measured systolic (bSBP) and pulse (bPP) pressure levels, together with a significant overestimation of diastolic pressure (bDBP). Similarly, the agreement between brachial mean blood pressure (bMBP), invasively and non-invasively measured, can be affected by inaccurate estimations/assumptions. Despite several methodologies that can be applied to estimate bMBP non-invasively, there is no consensus on which approach leads to the most accurate estimation. Aims: to evaluate the association and agreement between: (1) non-invasive (oscillometry) and invasive bBP; (2) invasive bMBP, and bMBP (i) measured by oscillometry and (ii) calculated using six different equations; and (3) bSBP and bPP invasively and non-invasively obtained by applanation tonometry and employing different calibration methods. To this end, invasive aortic blood pressure and bBP (catheterization), and non-invasive bBP (oscillometry [Mobil-O-Graph] and brachial artery applanation tonometry [SphygmoCor]) were simultaneously obtained (34 subjects, 193 records). bMBP was calculated using different approaches. Results: (i) the agreement between invasive bBP and their respective non-invasive measurements (oscillometry) showed dependence on bBP levels (proportional error); (ii) among the different approaches used to obtain bMBP, the equation that includes a form factor equal to 33% (bMBP = bDBP + bPP/3) showed the best association with the invasive bMBP; (iii) the best approach to estimate invasive bSBP and bPP from tonometry recordings is based on the calibration scheme that employs oscillometric bMBP. On the contrary, the worst association between invasive and applanation tonometry-derived bBP levels was observed when the brachial pulse waveform was calibrated to bMBP quantified as bMBP = bDBP + bPP/3. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for non-invasive bMBP assessment.

Aortic systolic and pulse pressure invasively and non-invasively obtained: Comparative analysis of recording techniques, arterial sites of measurement, waveform analysis algorithms and calibration methods

Background: The non-invasive estimation of aortic systolic (aoSBP) and pulse pressure (aoPP) is achieved by a great variety of devices, which differ markedly in the: 1) principles of recording (applied technology), 2) arterial recording site, 3) model and mathematical analysis applied to signals, and/or 4) calibration scheme. The most reliable non-invasive procedure to obtain aoSBP and aoPP is not well established. Aim: To evaluate the agreement between aoSBP and aoPP values invasively and non-invasively obtained using different: 1) recording techniques (tonometry, oscilometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), 2) recording sites [radial, brachial (BA) and carotid artery (CCA)], 3) waveform analysis algorithms (e.g., direct analysis of the CCA pulse waveform vs. peripheral waveform analysis using general transfer functions, N-point moving average filters, etc.), 4) calibration schemes (systolic-diastolic calibration vs. methods using BA diastolic and mean blood pressure (bMBP); the latter calculated using different equations vs. measured directly by oscillometry, and 5) different equations to estimate bMBP (i.e., using a form factor of 33% ("033"), 41.2% ("0412") or 33% corrected for heart rate ("033HR"). Methods: The invasive aortic (aoBP) and brachial pressure (bBP) (catheterization), and the non-invasive aoBP and bBP were simultaneously obtained in 34 subjects. Non-invasive aoBP levels were obtained using different techniques, analysis methods, recording sites, and calibration schemes. Results: 1) Overall, non-invasive approaches yielded lower aoSBP and aoPP levels than those recorded invasively. 2) aoSBP and aoPP determinations based on CCA recordings, followed by BA recordings, were those that yielded values closest to those recorded invasively. 3) The "033HR" and "0412" calibration schemes ensured the lowest mean error, and the "033" method determined aoBP levels furthest from those recorded invasively. 4) Most of the non-invasive approaches considered overestimated and underestimated aoSBP at low (i.e., 80 mmHg) and high (i.e., 180 mmHg) invasive aoSBP values, respectively. 5) The higher the invasively measured aoPP, the higher the level of underestimation provided by the non-invasive methods. Conclusion: The recording method and site, the mathematical method/model used to quantify aoSBP and aoPP, and to calibrate waveforms, are essential when estimating aoBP. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for the non-invasive aoBP assessment.

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

Objectives

The 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.

Methods

The 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).

Results

A 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].

Conclusion

Different 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.

Aortic Pressure Levels and Waveform Indexes in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Impact of Calibration Method on the Differences With Respect to Non-HIV Subjects and Optimal Values

Background: There are scarce and controversial data on whether human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is associated with changes in aortic pressure (aoBP) and waveform-derived indexes. Moreover, it remains unknown whether potential differences in aoBP and waveform indexes between people living with HIV (PLWHIV) and subjects without HIV (HIV-) would be affected by the calibration method of the pressure waveform.

Aims: To determine: (i) whether PLWHIV present differences in aoBP and waveform-derived indexes compared to HIV- subjects; (ii) the relative impact of both HIV infection and cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) on aoBP and waveform-derived indexes; (iii) whether the results of the first and second aims are affected by the calibration method.

Methods: Three groups were included: (i) PLWHIV (n = 86), (ii) HIV- subjects (general population; n = 1,000) and (iii) a Reference Group (healthy, non-exposed to CRFs; n = 398). Haemodynamic parameters, brachial pressure (baBP; systolic: baSBP; diastolic: baDBP; mean oscillometric: baMBPosc) and aoBP and waveform-derived indexes were obtained. Brachial mean calculated (baMBPcalc=baDBP+[baSBP-baDBP]/3) pressure was quantified. Three waveform calibration schemes were used: systolic-diastolic, calculated (baMBPcalc/baDBP) and oscillometric mean (baMBPosc/baDBP).

Results: Regardless of CRFs and baBP, PLWHIV presented a tendency of having lower aoBP and waveform-derived indexes which clearly reached statistical significance when using the baMBPosc/baDBP or baMBPcalc/baDBP calibration. HIV status exceeded the relative weight of other CRFs as explanatory variables, being the main explanatory variable for variations in central hemodynamics when using the baMBPosc/baDBP, followed by the baMBPcalc/baDBP calibration.

Conclusions: The peripheral waveform calibration approach is an important determinant to reveal differences in central hemodynamics in PLWHIV.

Pulse Wave Calibration and Implications for Blood Pressure Measurement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

[Figure: see text].

Association Between Central-Peripheral Blood Pressure Amplification and Structural and Functional Cardiac Properties in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: Impact of the Amplification Parameter, Recording System and Calibration Scheme

INTRODUCTION

Systolic blood pressure (SBPA) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) were quantified using different methodological and calibration approaches to analyze (1) the association and agreement between different SBPA and PPA parameters and (2) the association between these SBPA and PPA parameters and left ventricle (LV) and atrium (LA) structural and functional characteristics.

METHODS

In 269 healthy subjects, LV and LA parameters were echocardiography-derived. SBPA and PPA parameters were quantified using: (1) different equations (n = 9), (2) methodological approaches (n = 3): brachial sub-diastolic (Mobil-O-Graph®) and supra-systolic oscillometry (Arteriograph®) and aortic diameter waveform re-calibration (RCD; ultrasonography), and (3) using three different calibration schemes: systo-diastolic (SD), calculated mean (CM) and oscillometric mean (OscM).

RESULTS

SBPA and PPA parameters obtained with different equations, techniques, and calibration schemes show a highly variable association level (negative, non-significant, and/or positive) among them. The association between SBPA and PPA with cardiac parameters were highly variable (negative, non-significant, or positive associations). Differences in BPA parameter data between approaches were more sensitive to the calibration method than to the device used. Both, SBPA and PPA obtained with brachial sub-diastolic technique and calibrated to CM or OscM showed higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that many of the parameters that assume to quantify the same phenomenon of BPA are not related to each other in the different age groups. Both, SBPA and PPA obtained with brachial sub-diastolic technique and calibrated to CM or OscM showed higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics.

Changes in Body Size during Early Growth Are Independently Associated with Arterial Properties in Early Childhood

Nutritional status in early life stages has been associated with arterial parameters in childhood. However, it is still controversial whether changes in standardized body weight (z-BW), height (z-BH), BW for height (z-BWH) and/or body mass index (z-BMI) in the first three years of life are independently associated with variations in arterial structure, stiffness and hemodynamics in early childhood. In addition, it is unknown if the strength of the associations vary depending on the growth period, nutritional characteristics and/or arterial parameters analyzed. Aims: First, to compare the strength of association between body size changes (Δz-BW, Δz-BH, Δz-BWH, Δz-BMI) in different time intervals (growth periods: 0–6, 0–12, 0–24, 0–36, 12–24, 12–36, 24–36 months (m)) and variations in arterial structure, stiffness and hemodynamics at age 6 years. Second, to determine whether the associations depend on exposure to cardiovascular risk factors, body size at birth and/or on body size at the time of the evaluation (cofactors). Anthropometric (at birth, 6, 12, 24, 36 m and at age 6 years), hemodynamic (peripheral and central (aortic)) and arterial (elastic (carotid) and muscular (femoral) arteries; both hemi-bodies) parameters were assessed in a child cohort (6 years; n =632). The association between arterial parameters and body size changes (Δz-BW, Δz-BH, Δz-BWH, Δz-BMI) in the different growth periods was compared, before and after adjustment by cofactors. Results: Δz-BW 0–24 m and Δz-BWH 0–24 m allowed us to explain inter-individual variations in structural arterial properties at age 6 years, with independence of cofactors. When the third year of life was included in the analysis (0–36, 12–36, 24–36 m), Δz-BW explained hemodynamic (peripheral and central) variations at age 6 years. Δz-BH and Δz-BMI showed limited associations with arterial properties. Conclusion: Δz-BW and Δz-BWH are the anthropometric variables with the greatest association with arterial structure and hemodynamics in early childhood, with independence of cofactors.

Carotid and Femoral Atherosclerotic Plaques in Asymptomatic and Non-Treated Subjects: Cardiovascular Risk Factors, 10-Years Risk Scores, and Lipid Ratios´ Capability to Detect Plaque Presence, Burden, Fibro-Lipid Composition and Geometry

Carotid and/or femoral atherosclerotic plaques (AP) assessment through imaging studies is an interesting strategy for improving individual cardiovascular risk (CVR) stratification and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or events prediction. There is no consensus on who would benefit from image screening aimed at determining AP presence, burden, and characteristics.

AIMS

(1) to identify, in asymptomatic and non-treated subjects, demographic factors, anthropometric characteristics and cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs), individually or grouped (e.g., CVR equations, pro-atherogenic lipid ratios) associated with carotid and femoral AP presence, burden, geometry, and fibro-lipid content; (2) to identify cut-off values to be used when considering the variables as indicators of increased probability of AP presence, elevated atherosclerotic burden, and/or lipid content, in a selection scheme for subsequent image screening.

METHODS

CRFs exposure and clinical data were obtained (n = 581; n = 144 with AP; 47% females). Arterial (e.g., ultrasonography) and hemodynamic (central [cBP] and peripheral blood pressure; oscillometry/applanation tonometry) data were obtained. Carotid and femoral AP presence, burden (e.g., AP number, involved territories), geometric (area, width, height) and fibro-lipid content (semi-automatic, virtual histology analysis, grayscale analysis and color mapping) were assessed. Lipid profile was obtained. Lipid ratios (Total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol, LogTryglicerides(TG)/HDL-cholesterol) and eight 10-years [y.]/CVR scores were quantified (e.g., Framingham Risk Scores [FRS] for CVD).

RESULTS

Age, 10-y./CVR and cBP showed the highest levels of association with AP presence and burden. Individually, classical CRFs and lipid ratios showed almost no association with AP presence. 10-y./CVR levels, age and cBP enabled detecting AP with large surfaces (˃p75th). Lipid ratios showed the largest association with AP fibro-lipid content. Ultrasound evaluation could be considered in asymptomatic and non-treated subjects aiming at population screening of AP (e.g., ˃ 45 y.; 10-y./FRS-CVD ˃ 5-8%); identifying subjects with high atherosclerotic burden (e.g., ˃50 y., 10-y./FRS-CVD ˃ 13-15%) and/or with plaques with high lipid content (e.g., LogTG/HDL ˃ 0.135).

Aortic pressure and forward and backward wave components in children, adolescents and young-adults: Agreement between brachial oscillometry, radial and carotid tonometry data and analysis of factors associated with their differences

Non-invasive devices used to estimate central (aortic) systolic pressure (cSBP), pulse pressure (cPP) and forward (Pf) and backward (Pb) wave components from blood pressure (BP) or surrogate signals differ in arteries studied, techniques, data-analysis algorithms and/or calibration schemes (e.g. calibrating to calculated [MBPc] or measured [MBPosc] mean pressure). The aims were to analyze, in children, adolescents and young-adults (1) the agreement between cSBP, cPP, Pf and Pb obtained using carotid (CT) and radial tonometry (RT) and brachial-oscillometry (BOSC); and (2) explanatory factors for the differences between approaches-data and between MBPosc and MBPc.1685 subjects (mean/range age: 14/3-35 y.o.) assigned to three age-related groups (3-12; 12-18; 18-35 y.o.) were included. cSBP, cPP, Pf and Pb were assessed with BOSC (Mobil-O-Graph), CT and RT (SphygmoCor) records. Two calibration schemes were considered: MBPc and MBPosc for calibrations to similar BP levels. Correlation, Bland-Altman tests and multiple regression models were applied. Systematic and proportional errors were observed; errors´ statistical significance and values varied depending on the parameter analyzed, methods compared and group considered. The explanatory factors for the differences between data obtained from the different approaches varied depending on the methods compared. The highest cSBP and cPP were obtained from CT; the lowest from RT. Independently of the technique, parameter or age-group, higher values were obtained calibrating to MBPosc. Age, sex, heart rate, diastolic BP, body weight or height were explanatory factors for the differences in cSBP, cPP, Pf or Pb. Brachial BP levels were explanatory factors for the differences between MBPosc and MBPc.