New Method to Estimate Central Systolic Blood Pressure From Peripheral Pressure: A Proof of Concept and Validation Study

Assessing the Accuracy of Systolic Aortic Pressure Estimation From a Brachial Cuff Alone: A Comparison With Radial Tonometry

BACKGROUND

A novel method for estimating central systolic aortic pressure (cSAP) has emerged, relying solely on the peripheral mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures. We aimed to assess the accuracy of this Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation using cuff alone (DCBPcuff = MBP2/DBP) in comparison to the use of a generalized transfer function to derive cSAP from radial tonometry (cSAPtono).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis involved the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (IDCARS) data (Aparicio et al., Am J Hypertens 2022). The dataset encompassed 10,930 subjects from 13 longitudinal cohort studies worldwide (54.8% women; median age 46.0 years; office hypertension: 40.1%; treated: 61.0%), documenting cSAPtono via SphygmoCor calibrated against brachial systolic BP (SBP) and DBP. Our analysis focused on aggregate group data from 12/13 studies (89% patients) where a full BP dataset was available. A 35% form factor was used to estimate MBP = (DBP + (0.35 × (SBP-DBP)), from which DCBPcuff was derived. The predefined acceptable error for cSAPtono estimation was set at ≤ 5 mm Hg.

RESULTS

The cSAPtono values ranged from 103.8-127.0 mm Hg (n = 12). The error between DCBPcuff and cSAPtono was 0.2 ± 1.4 mm Hg, with no influence of the mean. Errors ranged from -1.8 to 2.9 mm Hg across studies. No significant difference in errors was observed between BP measurements obtained via oscillometry (n = 9) vs. auscultation (n = 3) (P = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Using published aggregate group data and a 35% form factor, DCBPcuff demonstrated remarkable accuracy in estimating cSAPtono, regardless of the BP measurement technique. However, given that individual BP values were unavailable, further documentation is required to establish DCBPcuff's precision.

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.

Estimation of central blood pressure waveform from femoral blood pressure waveform by blind sources separation

Background

Central blood pressure (cBP) is a better indicator of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than peripheral BP (pBP). However, direct cBP measurement requires invasive techniques and indirect cBP measurement is based on rigid and empirical transfer functions applied to pBP. Thus, development of a personalized and well-validated method for non-invasive derivation of cBP from pBP is necessary to facilitate the clinical routine. The purpose of the present study was to develop a novel blind source separation tool to separate a single recording of pBP into their pressure waveforms composing its dynamics, to identify the compounds that lead to pressure waveform distortion at the periphery, and to estimate the cBP. The approach is patient-specific and extracts the underlying blind pressure waveforms in pBP without additional brachial cuff calibration or any a priori assumption on the arterial model.

Methods

The intra-arterial femoral BPfe and intra-aortic pressure BPao were anonymized digital recordings from previous routine cardiac catheterizations of eight patients at the German Heart Centre Berlin. The underlying pressure waveforms in BPfe were extracted by the single-channel independent component analysis (SCICA). The accuracy of the SCICA model to estimate the whole cBP waveform was evaluated by the mean absolute error (MAE), the root mean square error (RMSE), the relative RMSE (RRMSE), and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The agreement between the intra-aortic and estimated parameters including systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse pressure (PP) was evaluated by the regression and Bland-Altman analyses.

Results

The SCICA tool estimated the cBP waveform non-invasively from the intra-arterial BPfe with an MAE of 0.159 ± 1.629, an RMSE of 5.153 ± 0.957 mmHg, an RRMSE of 5.424 ± 1.304%, and an ICC of 0.94, as well as two waveforms contributing to morphological distortion at the femoral artery. The regression analysis showed a strong linear trend between the estimated and intra-aortic SBP, DBP, MAP, and PP with high coefficient of determination R2 of 0.98, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.97 respectively. The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good agreement between estimated and intra-aortic parameters with a mean error and a standard deviation of difference of -0.54 ± 2.42 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -5.28 to 4.20] for SBP, -1.97 ± 1.62 mmHg (95% CI: -5.14 to 1.20) for DBP, -1.49 ± 1.40 mmHg (95% CI: -4.25 to 1.26) for MAP, and 1.43 ± 2.79 mmHg (95% CI: -4.03 to 6.90) for PP.

Conclusions

The SCICA approach is a powerful tool that identifies sources contributing to morphological distortion at peripheral arteries and estimates cBP.

Calibration of the Mechanical Boundary Conditions for a Patient-Specific Thoracic Aorta Model Including the Heart Motion Effect

OBJECTIVE

We propose a procedure for calibrating 4 parameters governing the mechanical boundary conditions (BCs) of a thoracic aorta (TA) model derived from one patient with ascending aortic aneurysm. The BCs reproduce the visco-elastic structural support provided by the soft tissue and the spine and allow for the inclusion of the heart motion effect.

METHODS

We first segment the TA from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) angiography and derive the heart motion by tracking the aortic annulus from cine-MRI. A rigid-wall fluid-dynamic simulation is performed to derive the time-varying wall pressure field. We build the finite element model considering patient-specific material properties and imposing the derived pressure field and the motion at the annulus boundary. The calibration, which involves the zero-pressure state computation, is based on purely structural simulations. After obtaining the vessel boundaries from the cine-MRI sequences, an iterative procedure is performed to minimize the distance between them and the corresponding boundaries derived from the deformed structural model. A strongly-coupled fluid-structure interaction (FSI) analysis is finally performed with the tuned parameters and compared to the purely structural simulation.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The calibration with structural simulations allows to reduce maximum and mean distances between image-derived and simulation-derived boundaries from 8.64 mm to 6.37 mm and from 2.24 mm to 1.83 mm, respectively. The maximum root mean square error between the deformed structural and FSI surface meshes is 0.19 mm. This procedure may prove crucial for increasing the model fidelity in replicating the real aortic root kinematics.

Estimation of Central Systolic Blood Pressure from Peripheral Pressure Waves using a Novel Second Systolic Pressure-Based Method in Normal and Heritable Hypercholesterolemic Rabbits

AIM

Central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) was closely related to hypertension-related organ damage rather than peripheral systolic blood pressure (pSBP). We aimed to estimate cSBP from pSBP without generalized transfer function in normal and Kurosawa and Kusanagi-hypercholesterolemic (KHC) rabbits aged 12 months.

METHODS

Two catheter-tip transducers were advanced into the ascending aorta (AA) and distal end of the right brachial artery (Br) through the right common carotid and right radial arteries, respectively, under pentobarbital anesthesia. Pressure waves in response to the intravenous administration of angiotensin II and sodium nitroprusside were simultaneously recorded in AA and Br under regular cardiac pacing.

RESULTS

The first (pSBP) and second peaks (pSBP2) of the brachial blood pressure and their average (pSBPm) were significantly correlated with cSBP, despite Murgo's wave pattern of central pressure waves in both rabbit groups. In Bland-Altman plot and its modification as a function of the peripheral augmentation index (pAI) analyses, the differences between pSBP and cSBP decreased, and those between pSBP2 and cSBP increased significantly in their average- or pAI-dependent manner, with undeniable mean biases in both rabbit groups. When the same analyses for SBPm were performed instead, the mean bias was around zero, with reduced variance in the two rabbit groups. The observed pressure or pAI-dependent systematic biases for pSBP and pSBP2 disappeared, representing the precise feature of pSBPm as a cSBP estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that pSBPm could be more precise than pSBP2 as a cSBP estimate, irrespective of blood pressure levels, pAI, or the presence of atherosclerosis.

Non-Invasive Estimation of Central Systolic Blood Pressure by Radial Tonometry: A Simplified Approach

BACKROUND

Central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) provides valuable clinical and physiological information. A recent invasive study showed that cSBP can be reliably estimated from mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. In this non-invasive study, we compared cSBP calculated using a Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation (DCBP = MBP2/DBP) with cSBP estimated by radial tonometry.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for cardiovascular assessment and prevention were prospectively included. Using applanation tonometry with SphygmoCor device, cSBP was estimated using an inbuilt generalized transfer function derived from radial pressure waveform, which was calibrated to oscillometric brachial SBP and DBP. The time-averaged MBP was calculated from the radial pulse waveform. The minimum acceptable error (DCBP-cSBP) was set at ≤5 (mean) and ≤8 mmHg (SD).

RESULTS

We included 160 patients (58 years, 54%men). The cSBP was 123.1 ± 18.3 mmHg (range 86-181 mmHg). The (DCBP-cSBP) error was -1.4 ± 4.9 mmHg. There was a linear relationship between cSBP and DCBP (R2 = 0.93). Forty-seven patients (29%) had cSBP values ≥ 130 mmHg, and a DCBP value > 126 mmHg exhibited a sensitivity of 91.5% and specificity of 94.7% in discriminating this threshold (Youden index = 0.86; AUC = 0.965).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the DCBP formula, radial tonometry allows for the robust estimation of cSBP without the need for a generalized transfer function. This finding may have implications for risk stratification.

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.