Inter-arm systolic blood pressure dependence on hand dominance

Aortic pulse wave morphology in individuals after chronic stroke: interarm comparison wave morphology after chronic stroke

CONTEXT

Vascular changes can be a risk factor for recurrent and new events of stroke. However, few information is known regarding the variables related to aortic pulse wave morphology in stroke individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze aortic pulse wave morphology (arterial stiffness indices, hemodynamics and vascular variables) and to compare the paretic and non-paretic sides in individuals after chronic stroke.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional study stroke individuals had arterial stiffness indices, hemodynamics and vascular variables assessed with brachial artery oscillometry. T-test (CI95%) was used in order to compare the variables between the paretic and non-paretic sides.

RESULTS

Twenty individuals were included, 65% men (60.3 SD 16.7 years). The following variables: (mean difference [CI95%]): coefficient of reflection (-2.33 [-4.60 to -0.07]), peak of ejection wave, P1 (5.32 [2.75 to 7.90] and peak of ejection wave, P2 (6.17 [2.55 to 9.78]), central diastolic blood pressure (mean difference [IC95%]): (-3.75 [-6.09 to -1.40]), central systolic blood pressure (-6.17 [-9.74 to -2.59]), mean arterial pressure (-4.46 [-7.08 to -1.84]), peripheral diastolic blood pressure (-3.48 [-5.94 to -1.02]) and peripheral systolic blood pressure (-5.53 [-9.54 to -1.52]) were higher in paretic than non-paretic side. Hemodynamics parameters were similar in both sides.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we demonstrated, for the first time, that many parameters from aortic pulse wave were higher in paretic compared with non-paretic side in individuals after chronic stroke, suggesting that peripheral vascular changes affect heart-vascular coupling in these individuals.

Sources of automatic office blood pressure measurement error: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Accurate and reliable blood pressure (BP) measurement is important for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. The oscillometric-based automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is widely used in hospitals and clinics, but measurement errors are common in BP measurements. There is a lack of systematic review of the sources of measurement errors.

APPROACH

A systematic review of all existing research on sources of AOBPM errors. A search strategy was designed in six online databases, and all the literature published before October 2021 was selected. Those studies that used the AOBPM device to measure BP from the upper arm of subjects were included.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1365 studies were screened, and 224 studies were included in this final review. They investigated 22 common error sources with clinical AOBPM. Regarding the causes of BP errors, this review divided them into the following categories: the activities before measurement, patient's factors, measurement environment, measurement procedure, and device settings. 13 sources caused increased systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), 2 sources caused the decrease in SBP and DBP, only 1 source had no significant effect on BPs, and the other errors had a non-uniform effect (either increase or decrease in BPs). The error ranges for SBP and DBP were -14 to 33 mmHg and -6 to 19 mmHg, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

The measurement accuracy of AOBPM is susceptible to the influence of measurement factors. Interpreting BP readings need to be treated with caution in clinical measurements. This review made comprehensive evidence for the need for standardized BP measurements and provided guidance for clinical practitioners when measuring BP with AOBPM devices.

Prevalence of inter-arm blood pressure difference among young healthy adults: Results from a large cross-sectional study on 3235 participants

More than 100 years ago, the difference in blood pressure (BP) between arms was first reported. Recent studies have shown that different blood pressure between the right and left arm leads to cardiovascular events. Three thousand and thirty volunteers participated in our cross-sectional study. The sIABP was equal in 163 of 3030 persons (5.37%), dIABP was equal in 222 out of 3030 persons (7.32%), from a total of 792/3030 persons (26.1%) sIAD >10 mmHg, and dIAD > or = 10 mmHg was found in 927 out of 3030 persons (33.5%) in the right arm, and 32.4% in the left arm. In 2692 of 3030 volunteers BP, initially recorded in the dominant hand (right arm), showing sIAD > or = 10 mmHg was found in 943 (37.1%) volunteers, and when the first measurement was done in 338 left-handed volunteers it showed sIAD > or = 10 mmHg in 112 of 338 (34.1%), P < .001; 95% confidence interval for systolic right hand were (115.73: 116.73), and for systolic left hand 95% confidence interval were (113.17:114.15). Furthermore, height, residential area, and heart rate above 90 bpm had a significant effect on IAD (P = . 041, 0.002, <001, respectively). In conclusion, significant inter-arm systolic and diastolic BP differences above (10 mm Hg) is common in the young, healthy population. Hand dominance is a significant consideration while measuring blood pressure. It is mandatory to measure blood pressure in both arms in a sitting position with a stable condition.

Characterizing Agreement in the Level of Interarm Blood Pressure Readings of Adults in the Emergency Department (CALIBRATE Study)

Background: Increased interarm systolic blood pressure difference (IASBPD) is one of the major predictors of cardiovascular disease. An IASBPD of >10 mmHg is of clinical significance. However, studies have reported a high number of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with high IASBPD and varying correlation of IASBPD to age, ethnic background, and comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes. Objective: The CALIBRATE study aimed to measure the IABPDs in the multiethnic patient population presenting to the ED in Qatar and to assess the distribution of IASBPD in this population. Methods: In a sitting position, two consecutive blood pressure (BP) measurements were recorded from the right and left arms for each participant using a calibrated automated machine and appropriate cuff sizes. The data were recorded using predefined data fields, including patient demographics, past medical, and social and family history. The continuous variables were reported as mean or median based on the distribution of data. The data were analyzed using Stata MP 14.0. Results: A total of 1800 patients, with a mean age of 34 (10) years, were prospectively recruited from the ED. The median absolute systolic BP difference (ΔSBP) between the right and left arms was 6 (3-10) mmHg, and it was the same for the first (ΔSBP1) and the second readings (ΔSBP2). The absolute average of ΔSBP1 and ΔSBP2 was 7 (4-10) mmHg. The difference in systolic BP difference (SBP) of < 20 mmHg for interarm blood pressure was seen in the 95th percentile of the population. No meaningful association could be detected between the IABPD and the study variables such as age, demographics, regions of interest, and risk factors. Conclusion: In population presenting to the ED, the IASBPD of at least 20 mmHg reached at the 95th percentile, validating the known significant difference. The utility of SBP difference can be improved further by taking the average of two individual readings.