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.

[1]  D. Bia,et al.  Central Pressure Waveform-Derived Indexes Obtained From Carotid and Radial Tonometry and Brachial Oscillometry in Healthy Subjects (2–84 Y): Age-, Height-, and Sex-Related Profiles and Analysis of Indexes Agreement , 2022, Frontiers in Physiology.

[2]  D. Bia,et al.  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 , 2021, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine.

[3]  D. Bia,et al.  Sex- and Age-Related Physiological Profiles for Brachial, Vertebral, Carotid, and Femoral Arteries Blood Flow Velocity Parameters During Growth and Aging (4–76 Years): Comparison With Clinical Cut-Off Levels , 2021, Frontiers in Physiology.

[4]  D. Bia,et al.  Age- and sex-related profiles for macro, macro/micro and microvascular reactivity indexes: Association between indexes and normative data from 2609 healthy subjects (3-85 years) , 2021, PloS one.

[5]  D. Bia,et al.  Physiological Age- and Sex-Related Profiles for Local (Aortic) and Regional (Carotid-Femoral, Carotid-Radial) Pulse Wave Velocity and Center-to-Periphery Stiffness Gradient, with and without Blood Pressure Adjustments: Reference Intervals and Agreement between Methods in Healthy Subjects (3–84 Years , 2021, Journal of cardiovascular development and disease.

[6]  G. Parati,et al.  Mean arterial pressure estimated by brachial pulse wave analysis and comparison with currently used algorithms , 2020, Journal of hypertension.

[7]  D. Bia,et al.  Stroke volume and cardiac output non-invasive monitoring based on brachial oscillometry-derived pulse contour analysis: Explanatory variables and reference intervals throughout life (3–88 years) , 2020, Cardiology journal.

[8]  D. Bia,et al.  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 , 2019, PloS one.

[9]  D. Bia,et al.  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 , 2019, High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention.

[10]  E. C. Fischer,et al.  Central Blood Pressure Waves Assessment: A Validation Study of Non-invasive Aortic Pressure Measurement in Human Beings , 2019, 2019 Global Medical Engineering Physics Exchanges/ Pan American Health Care Exchanges (GMEPE/PAHCE).

[11]  J. Sharman,et al.  Aortic systolic pressure derived with different calibration methods: associations to brachial systolic pressure in the general population , 2018, Blood pressure monitoring.

[12]  A. Cremer,et al.  Accuracy of Cuff-Measured Blood Pressure: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  Yoshio Kobayashi,et al.  Comparison of invasive and brachial cuff-based noninvasive measurements for the assessment of blood pressure amplification , 2017, Hypertension Research.

[14]  A. Hughes,et al.  Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: ARTERY Society task force consensus statement on protocol standardization , 2017, European heart journal.

[15]  J. Sharman,et al.  Systolic blood pressure amplification and waveform calibration , 2017, Hypertension Research.

[16]  J. Sharman,et al.  Importance of Calibration Method in Central Blood Pressure for Cardiac Structural Abnormalities. , 2016, American journal of hypertension.

[17]  Siegfried Wassertheurer,et al.  Accuracy of commercial devices and methods for noninvasive estimation of aortic systolic blood pressure a systematic review and meta-analysis of invasive validation studies , 2016, Journal of hypertension.

[18]  D. Tousoulis,et al.  Mean arterial pressure values calculated using seven different methods and their associations with target organ deterioration in a single-center study of 1878 individuals , 2016, Hypertension Research.

[19]  J. Wenke,et al.  Combat-related bridge synostosis versus traditional transtibial amputation: comparison of military-specific outcomes , 2015, Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction.

[20]  J. Blacher,et al.  Pulse pressure amplification, pressure waveform calibration and clinical applications. , 2012, Atherosclerosis.

[21]  K. Takazawa,et al.  Correlation between the brachial blood pressure values obtained using the cuff method and the central blood pressure values obtained invasively. , 2013, Internal medicine.