Carbamylated darbepoetin derivative prevents endothelial progenitor cell damage with no effect on angiogenesis.

R. Ramírez,J. Carracedo,S. Nogueras,P. Buendía,A. Merino,S. Cañadillas,Mariano Rodríguez,C. Tetta,A. Martín-Malo,P. Aljama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2009.09.005

IF: 5.763

2009-12-01

Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Which cuff should I use? Indirect blood pressure measurement for the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with obesity: a diagnostic accuracy review

Greg Irving,John Holden,Richard Stevens,Richard J McManus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012429

IF: 3.006

2016-11-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement compared with reference standards for the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with obesity with a large arm circumference.DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Bland-Altman analyses where individual patient data were available. Methodological quality appraised using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS2) criteria.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, DARE, Medion and Trip databases were searched.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cross-sectional, randomised and cohort studies of diagnostic test accuracy that compared any non-invasive BP tests (upper arm, forearm, wrist, finger) with an appropriate reference standard (invasive BP, correctly fitting upper arm cuff, ambulatory BP monitoring) in primary care were included.RESULTS: 4037 potentially relevant papers were identified. 20 studies involving 26 different comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Individual patient data were available from 4 studies. No studies satisfied all QUADAS2 criteria. Compared with the reference test of invasive BP, a correctly fitting upper arm BP cuff had a sensitivity of 0.87 (0.79 to 0.93) and a specificity of 0.85 (0.64 to 0.95); insufficient evidence was available for other comparisons to invasive BP. Compared with the reference test of a correctly fitting upper arm cuff, BP measurement at the wrist had a sensitivity of 0.92 (0.64 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.92 (0.85 to 0.87). Measurement with an incorrectly fitting standard cuff had a sensitivity of 0.73 (0.67 to 0.78) and a specificity of 0.76 (0.69 to 0.82). Measurement at the forearm had a sensitivity of 0.84 (0.71 to 0.92) and a specificity 0.75 of (0.66 to 0.83). Bland-Altman analysis of individual patient data from 3 studies comparing wrist and upper arm BP showed a mean difference of 0.46 mm Hg for systolic BP measurement and 2.2 mm Hg for diastolic BP measurement.CONCLUSIONS: BP measurement with a correctly fitting upper arm cuff is sufficiently sensitive and specific to diagnose hypertension in patients with obesity with a large upper arm circumference. If a correctly fitting upper arm cuff cannot be applied, an incorrectly fitting standard size cuff should not be used and BP measurement at the wrist should be considered.

medicine, general & internal
PS-C08-1: ACCURACY OF CUFF BLOOD PRESSURE AND SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE AMPLIFICATION

Tan Bui,Dean Picone,Martin Schultz,Xiaoqing Peng,Andrew Black,Nathan Dwyer,Philip Roberts Thomson,Heath Adams,Chen Huan Chen,Hao Min Cheng,Giacomo Pucci,Jiguang Wang,Remi Goupil,James Sharman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0000914752.66071.ed

IF: 4.9

2023-01-01

Journal of Hypertension

Abstract:Automated cuff measured blood pressure (BP) is the global standard used for diagnosing hypertension, but there are concerns regarding the accuracy of the method. Individual variability in systolic BP (SBP) amplification from central (aorta) to peripheral (brachial) arteries could be related to the accuracy of cuff BP, but this has never been determined and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP and invasive brachial BP were recorded in 755 participants (73% male, aged 64 ± 11 years) receiving coronary angiography at six independent research sites (using seven different automated cuff BP devices). SBP amplification was recorded invasively by catheter and defined as brachial SBP minus aortic SBP. Compared with invasive brachial SBP, cuff SBP was significantly underestimated (130 ± 18 mmHg vs. 138 ± 22 mmHg, p < 0.001). The level of SBP amplification varied significantly among individuals (mean ± SD, 7.3 ± 9.1 mmHg; interquartile range, -2.4 to 12.3 mmHg) and was similar to level of difference between cuff and invasive brachial SBP (mean difference -7.6 ± 11.9 mmHg). SBP amplification explained most of the variance in accuracy of cuff SBP (R2 = 19%). The accuracy of cuff SBP was greatest among those participants in the lowest SBP amplification quintiles (ptrend< 0.001). After cuff BP values were corrected for SBP amplification, there was a significant improvement in the mean difference from the intra-arterial standard (p < 0.0001) and in the accuracy of hypertension classification according to 2017 ACC/AHA guideline thresholds (p = 0.005). The accuracy of automated cuff BP is markedly influenced by individual variability in SBP amplification. This knowledge can help improve the accuracy of cuff BP.

peripheral vascular disease
The impact of sphygmomanometer placement and cuff placement on blood pressure measurements

Xiao-Yong Zhu,Pu-Hua Zhang,Wen-Yin Huang,Wan Huang,Xin-Hu Tang,Hua Yu,Su-Nan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1388313

2024-06-18

Abstract:Background: Hypertension is the most significant global risk factor for mortality and morbidity, making standardized blood pressure measurement crucial. Objectives: To investigate whether the location of blood pressure monitors and the positioning of cuffs yield differing results in blood pressure measurements. Methods: Patients admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang College between 1 January 2022 and 30 June 2023 were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated into four groups. These groups were defined based on the positioning of monitoring equipment as follows: varied placements of cuffs on automatic blood pressure monitors, different heights for mercury column blood pressure monitors, varied heights for automatic blood pressure monitors, and different orientations for the cuff airbag tubes on electrocardiogram monitors. Blood pressure was measured and recorded for each group, followed by an analysis of the variations in readings across the different setups. Results: In the first cohort of 763 individuals, mean systolic blood pressure measured at the standard upper arm site was 128.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, compared to 125.3 ± 10.4 mmHg at the elbow fossa. The corresponding diastolic pressures were 79.2 ± 10.7 and 75.0 ± 10.6 mmHg, respectively. The difference in systolic pressure between these positions was significant at 3.48 ± 3.22 mmHg (t₁ = 29.91, p₁ < 0.001) and for diastolic pressure at 4.23 ± 1.31 mmHg (t₂ = 88.98, p₂ < 0.001). For the subsequent groups, involving 253, 312, and 225 individuals, respectively, blood pressure measurements were analyzed and compared across different methods within each group. All p-values exceeded 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Blood pressure values measured at the elbow fossa position using an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer were found to be lower than those measured at the upper arm position, with a difference of 3.48 mmHg for systolic and 4.23 mmHg for diastolic pressures. It is therefore essential to position the cuff correctly, specifically 2-3 cm above the elbow fossa, when utilizing an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer for blood pressure monitoring. Conversely, the placement of the mercury column sphygmomanometer and the automated sphygmomanometer at varying heights had no significant effect on blood pressure readings. Similarly, the orientation of the electrocardiogram's cuffed balloon tube, whether facing upward or downward, did not influence blood pressure measurement outcomes.
Blood Pressure Measurement Multicentre Trial

吕卓人,薛小临,石志红,吕元吉,王玉茹,徐金凤,翟大玲,胡申江,苏群,林明,蔡洪斌,黄永升,黄达梅,张锦明

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-4287.2002.01.004

2002-01-01

Abstract:Objective To observe the evidence of accurate blood pressure measurement. Methods The indirect blood pressure were compared with the direct intra-aorta readings in 169 cases from 6 hospitals. Results ①The indirect systolic blood pressure(SBP) showed an average 6.4mmHg higher then the direct intra-aorta SBP(P0.0001)with good correlation(r=0.863).②Phase IV Korotkoff sounds appeared 8.4mmHg higher (P0.0001) than the direct diastolic blood pressure(DBP), but Phase V Korotkoff sounds disappeared an average 1.9mmHg lower and almost closed to the direct DBP. ③Phase V Korotkoff sounds disappeared an average 5.7mmHg lower significantly(P0.005)than the intra-aorta DBP in eldly(≥65yr) ④The lowest value among the 2～3 readings closed mostly to the direct blood pressure. Conclusion Following the evidences in this clinical trial, the indirect blood pressure measurement technique was recommended in order to maximize the accuracy and reliability.
Discrepancy Of Blood Pressure Between The Brachial Artery And Radial Artery

Wen-Yuan Li,Xiao-Hai Wang,Li-Chong Lu,Hao Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.04.010

2013-01-01

World Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: In this study, we attempted to find the relations between blood pressure (BP) measured on the brachial artery (bBP) and BP assessed on the radial artery (rBP) in the right arm.METHODS: Three hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled in this study. Those who had peripheral vascular disease, wounds of arm skin or subcutaneous tissue infection were excluded. After a 15-minute equilibration and stabilization period after inducation of anesthesia, three bBP and rBP records were obtained sequentially using an oscillometric device with an adult cuff and infant cuff, respectively. Order for each BP was randomized.RESULTS: The bBP was significantly lower than the rBP (P<0.05). The difference between the two values varied from 13 to 18 mmHg in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP) and mean blood pressure (MAP) respectively. And the rBP was positively correlated with the bBP (r=0.872, 0.754, 0.765; P<0.001, <0.001, <0.001; SBP, DBP, MAP, respectively).CONCLUSION: The bBP value can be evaluated by the noninvasive measurements of rBP using an appropriate cuff in clinical practice.
Association Between Inter-Arm Difference In Sbp And Central Blood Pressure In A Beijing Community Cohort

Wei Ma,Litong Qi,Fangfang Fan,Ying Yang,Baowei Zhang,Jia Jia,Min Li,Yan Zhang,Yong Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000506

2021-01-01

Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract:ObjectiveThe inter-arm SBP difference (IASBPD) can serve as a predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this study, we aimed to determine the relationship between IASBPD and central blood pressure (CBP).MethodsThe study cohort comprised of 7842 eligible individuals. Their BPs were assessed simultaneously in both arms using an Omron BP-203RPEIII vascular profiler, and the IASBPD was measured as the absolute difference in these values (absolute value of left minus right). The CBP was noninvasively measured using an Omron HEM-9000AI device. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the association between the central SBP (cSBP) and the IASBPD.ResultsAn IASBPD of >= 10 mmHg was positively associated with the cSBP (beta = 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.48; P < 0.001). The interaction test showed no significant interactions between the IASBPD and any of the assessed covariates (age group; sex; BMI; smoking status; heart rate group; the presence of hypertension, diabetes, or CVD; and antihypertensive drug use) when the cSBP was used as the outcome in the subgroup analysis.ConclusionThe mechanism underlying the ability of the IASBPD to predict CVD may partly involve an increase in the CBP.
Assessing the Accuracy of Systolic Aortic Pressure Estimation From a Brachial Cuff Alone: A Comparison With Radial Tonometry

Denis Chemla,Davide Agnoletti,Pierre Attal,Sandrine Millasseau,Jacques Blacher,Mathieu Jozwiak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae039

2024-03-22

American Journal of Hypertension

Abstract:Abstract 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.

peripheral vascular disease
Measuring blood pressure from Korotkoff sounds as the brachial cuff inflates on average provides higher values than when the cuff deflates

Branko G Celler,Ahmadreza Argha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad39a2

2024-04-04

Physiological Measurement

Abstract:Objectives. In this study, we test the hypothesis that if, as demonstrated in a previous study, brachial arteries exhibit hysteresis as the occluding cuff is deflated and fail to open until cuff pressure (CP) is well below true intra-arterial blood pressure (IAPB), estimating systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from the presence of Korotkoff sounds as CP increases may eliminate these errors and give more accurate estimates of SBP and DBP relative to IABP readings. Approach. In 62 subjects of varying ages (45.1±19.8, range 20-6 - 75.8 years), including 44 men (45.3±19.4, range 20.6 – 75.8 years) and 18 women (44.4±21.4, range 20.9 - 75.3 years), we sequentially recorded SBP and DBP both during cuff inflation and cuff deflation using Korotkoff sounds. Results. There was a significant (p<0.0001) increase in SBP from 122.8±13.2 to 127.6±13.0 mmHg and a significant (p=0.0001) increase in DBP from 70.0±9.0 to 77.5±9.7 mmHg. Of the 62 subjects, 51 showed a positive increase in SBP (0 to 14 mmHg) and 11 subjects showed a reduction (-0.3 to -7 mmHg). The average differences for SBP and DBP estimates derived as the cuff inflates and those derived as the cuff deflates were 4.8±4.6 mmHg and 2.5±4.6mmHg, not dissimilar to the differences reported between IABP and NIBP measurements. Although we could not develop multiparameter linear or non-linear models to explain this phenomenon we have clearly demonstrated through ANOVA tests that both body mass index (BMI) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) are implicated, supporting the hypothesis that the phenomenon is associated with age, higher BMI and stiffer arteries. Significance. The implications of this study are that brachial sphygmomanometry carried out during cuff inflation could be more accurate than measurements carried out as the cuff deflates. Further research is required to validate these results with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements.

engineering, biomedical,biophysics,physiology
Simultaneous 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement on both arms: a consideration for improving hypertension management

Tomas L Bothe,Reinhold Kreutz,Martin Glos,Andreas Patzak,Niklas Pilz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000003632

2024-05-01

Abstract:Objective: Arterial hypertension is one of the common treatment goals in today's medicine. 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) performed by oscillometric cuff-based devices is considered as the gold standard in hypertension diagnostics. This study aims at examining the measurement accuracy of a widely used, ABPM device. Methods: Fifty-two young and healthy participants underwent simultaneous 24-h ABPM on the left and the right upper arm using two Boso/A&D TM-2430 oscillometric cuff-based devices. Pressure curves of the cuffs, as well as hydrostatic pressure difference between the cuffs were recorded. Results: The mean differences between both simultaneous measurements were 1.16 mmHg with limits of agreement of 36.23 mmHg for SBP and 1.32 mmHg with limits of agreement of 32.65 mmHg for DBP. Excluding measurements where the pressure curves were disturbed and correcting for hydrostatic pressure difference between the cuffs, reduced the measurement error. However, limits of agreement remained around 20 mmHg. There were large differences in hypertension grading and dipping pattern classification between simultaneous measurements on the left and right arm. Conclusion: The cuff-based ABPM device reveals notable measurement uncertainties, influencing hypertension grading, dipping pattern classification and blood pressure variability. These effects are attributed in part to disturbances during cuff deflation and hydrostatic influences. Nonetheless, ABPM has shown its clinical values in several studies, while this study underscores its still unlocked potential to improve hypertension management.
Evaluation of the oscillometric method for noninvasive blood pressure measurement during cuff deflation and cuff inflation with reference to intra-arterial blood pressure

Branko G. Celler,Andy Yong,Imants Rubenis,Mark Butlin,Ahmadreza Argha,Rajan Rehan,Alberto Avolio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.0000000000003719

IF: 4.9

2024-06-01

Journal of Hypertension

Abstract:There is little quantitative clinical data available to support blood pressure measurement accuracy during cuff inflation. In this study of 35 male and 5 female lightly anaesthetized subjects aged 64.1 ± 9.6 years, we evaluate and compare the performance of both the oscillometric ratio and gradient methods during cuff deflation and cuff inflation with reference to intra-arterial measurements. We show that the oscillometric waveform envelopes (OWE), which are key to both methods, exhibit significant variability in both shape and smoothness leading to at least 15% error in the determination of mean pressure (MP). We confirm the observation from our previous studies that K1 Korotkoff sounds underestimate systolic blood pressure (SBP) and note that this underestimation is increased during cuff inflation. The estimation of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is generally accurate for both the ratio and the gradient method, with the latter showing a significant increase during inflation. Since the gradient method estimates SBP and DBP from points of maximum gradient on each OWE recorded, it may offer significant benefits over the ratio method. However, we have shown that the ratio method can be optimized for any data set to achieve either a minimum mean error (ME) of close to 0 mmHg or minimum root mean square error (RMSE) with standard deviation (SD) of <5.0 mmHg. We conclude that whilst cuff inflation may offer some advantages, these are neither significant nor substantial, leaving as the only benefit, the potential for more rapid measurement and less patient discomfort.

peripheral vascular disease
Identifying Isolated Systolic Hypertension From Upper-Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Compared With Invasive Measurements

Dean S. Picone,Martin G. Schultz,Matthew K. Armstrong,J. Andrew Black,Willem Jan W. Bos,Chen-Huan Chen,Hao-Min Cheng,Antoine Cremer,Nathan Dwyer,Alun D. Hughes,Hack-Lyoung Kim,Peter S. Lacy,Esben Laugesen,Fuyou Liang,Nobuyuki Ohte,Sho Okada,Stefano Omboni,Christian Ott,Telmo Pereira,Giacomo Pucci,Roland E. Schmieder,Manish D. Sinha,George A. Stouffer,Kenji Takazawa,Philip Roberts-Thomson,Ji-Guang Wang,Thomas Weber,Berend E. Westerhof,Bryan Williams,James E. Sharman,for the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.16109

IF: 9.8968

2021-01-05

Hypertension

Abstract:Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55–72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as ≥130/<80 mm Hg using cuff BP compared with invasive aortic BP as the reference. The prevalence of ISH was 24% (n=407) according to cuff BP but 38% (n=642) according to invasive aortic BP. There was fair agreement (Cohen κ, 0.36) and 72% concordance between cuff and invasive aortic BP for identifying ISH. Among the 28% of subjects (n=471) with misclassification of ISH status by cuff BP, 20% (n=96) of the difference was due to lower cuff systolic BP compared with invasive aortic systolic BP (mean, −16.4 mm Hg [95% CI, −18.7 to −14.1]), whereas 49% (n=231) was from higher cuff diastolic BP compared with invasive aortic diastolic BP (+14.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 11.5−16.9]). In conclusion, compared with invasive BP, cuff BP fails to identify ISH in a sizeable portion of older people and demonstrates the need to improve cuff BP measurements.

peripheral vascular disease
Inter‐observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement

Bonaventure Oguaju,Darren Lau,Raj Padwal,Jennifer Ringrose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14854

2024-06-22

Journal of Clinical Hypertension

Abstract:Accurate arm circumference (AC) measurement is required for accurate blood pressure (BP) readings. Standards stipulate measuring arm circumference at the midpoint between the acromion process (AP) and the olecranon process. However, which part of the AP to use is not stipulated. Furthermore, BP is measured sitting but arm circumference is measured standing. We sought to understand how landmarking during AC measurement and body position affect cuff size selection. Two variations in measurement procedure were studied. First, AC was measured at the top of the acromion (TOA) and compared to the spine of the acromion (SOA). Second, standing versus seated measurements using each landmark were compared. AC was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm at the mid‐point of the upper arm by two independent observers, blinded from each other's measurements. In 51 participants, the mean (±SD) mid‐AC measurement using the anchoring landmarks TOA and SOA in the standing position were 32.4 cm (±6.18) and 32.1 cm (±6.07), respectively (mean difference of 0.3 cm). In the seated position, mean arm circumference was 32.2 (±6.10) using TOA and 31.1 (±6.03) using SOA (mean difference 1.1 cm). Kappa agreement for cuff selection in the standing position between TOA and SOA was 0.94 (p

peripheral vascular disease
Comparison of cuff inflation and cuff deflation brachial sphygmomanometry with intra-arterial blood pressure as reference

Branko G Celler,Andy Yong,Imants Rubenis,Mark Butlin,Ahmadreza Argha,Rajan Rehan,Alberto Avolio,Branko G. Celler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.0000000000003659

IF: 4.9

2024-01-16

Journal of Hypertension

Abstract:Conventional sphygmomanometry with cuff deflation is used to calibrate all noninvasive BP (NIBP) instruments and the International Standard makes no mention of calibrating methods specifically for NIBP instruments, which estimate systolic and diastolic pressure during cuff inflation rather than cuff deflation. There is however increasing interest in inflation-based NIBP (iNIBP) instruments on the basis of shorter measurement time, reduction in maximal inflation pressure and improvement in patient comfort and outcomes. However, we have previously demonstrated that SBP estimates based on the occurrence of the first K1 Korotkoff sounds during cuff deflation can underestimate intra-arterial SBP (IA-SBP) by an average of 14 ± 10 mmHg. In this study, we compare the dynamics of intra-arterial blood pressure (IABP) measurements with sequential measurement of Korotkoff sounds during both cuff inflation and cuff deflation in the same individual. In 40 individuals aged 64.1 ± 9.6 years (range 36–86 years), the overall dynamic responses below the cuff were similar, but the underestimation error was significantly larger during inflation than deflation, increasing from 14 ± 10 to 19 ± 12 mmHg ( P < 0.0001). No statistical models were found which could compensate for this error as were found for cuff deflation. The statistically significant BP differences between inflation and deflation protocols reported in this study suggest different behaviour of the arterial and venous vasculature between arterial opening and closing which warrant further investigation, particularly for iNIBP devices reporting estimates during cuff inflation. In addition, measuring Korotkoff sounds during cuff inflation represents significant technical difficulties because of increasing pump motor noise.

peripheral vascular disease
Validation of the DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor in the general population according to the ISO 81060-2:2018/AMD 1:2020 protocol

Qi Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0000000000000717

2024-07-16

Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor in the general population according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020). The test monitor was used to measure SBP and DBP and pulse rate in the wrists using the oscillometric method. According to this protocol using the same-arm sequential blood pressure measurement method, subjects were recruited to fulfill the age, sex, blood pressure, and cuff distribution criteria of the Universal Standard. A single cuff for wrist sizes of 13.5–21.5 cm was used. A total of 85 subjects were included in this study. According to Criterion 1, the mean difference in SBP between the test device and the reference device was 0.89 mmHg, with a SD of 7.76 mmHg. The mean difference of DBP was −1.44 mmHg, with a SD of 6.23 mmHg. The mean difference between SBP and DBP was less than 5.0 mmHg, and the SD was less than 8.0 mmHg, which met the requirements. According to Criterion 2, the SD of the mean differences of SBP between the test device and the reference device per subject was 5.65 mmHg, which was less than 6.88 mmHg and met the requirements. The SD of the mean differences of DBP between the test device and the reference device per subject was 5.61 mmHg, which was less than 6.78 mmHg and met the requirements. The DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor met the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020). It can be recommended for home and clinical use.

peripheral vascular disease
Elevated Interarm Systolic Blood Pressure Difference Is Positively Associated with Increased Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease

Min Li,Fangfang Fan,Yan Zhang,Wei Ma,Yong Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5577957

2021-01-01

International Journal of Hypertension

Abstract:Background. Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We investigated the relationship between interarm systolic blood pressure difference and coronary artery disease. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed data for patients undergoing coronary angiography and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity examination during hospitalization from 2013 to 2018. Patients underwent simultaneous upper arm blood pressure measurement. Interarm systolic blood pressure difference (IASBPD) was defined as the absolute value of the difference between the right and left upper limb systolic blood pressure. Patients with IASBPD >= 10 mmHg constituted the high group, and those with IASBPD Results. Compared with the normal group, the number of patients with coronary artery disease was higher in the high group (86.1% vs. 74.6%, P=0.029). Multiple logistic regression showed that IASBPD >= 10 mmHg were positively correlated with coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 2.313; 95% confidence interval, 1.086-4.509; P=0.029), and as the IASBPD value increased, the correlation also gradually increased. Conclusions. IASBPD >= 10 mmHg was positively related to coronary artery disease and increased IASBPD values were correlated with coronary artery disease severity.
Arm Position and Blood Pressure Readings: The ARMS Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

Hairong Liu,Di Zhao,Ahmed Sabit,Chathurangi H Pathiravasan,Junichi Ishigami,Jeanne Charleston,Edgar R Miller 3rd,Kunihiro Matsushita,Lawrence J Appel,Tammy M Brady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5213

2024-10-07

Abstract:Importance: Guidelines for blood pressure (BP) measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff positioned at heart level. Still, nonstandard positions are used in clinical practice (eg, with arm resting on the lap or unsupported on the side). Objective: To determine the effect of different arm positions on BP readings. Design, setting, and participants: This crossover randomized clinical trial recruited adults between the ages of 18 and 80 years in Baltimore, Maryland, from August 9, 2022, to June 1, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to sets of triplicate BP measurements with the arm positioned in 3 ways: (1) supported on a desk (desk 1; reference), (2) hand supported on lap (lap), and (3) arm unsupported at the side (side). To account for intrinsic BP variability, all participants underwent a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk (desk 2). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in differences in mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the reference BP (desk 1) and the 2 arm support positions (lap and side): (lap or side - desk 1) - (desk 2 - desk 1). Results were also stratified by hypertensive status, age, obesity status, and access to health care within the past year. Results: The trial enrolled 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [17] years; 70 [53%] female); 48 participants (36%) had SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher. Lap and side positions resulted in statistically significant higher BP readings than desk positions, with the difference in differences as follows: lap, SBP Δ 3.9 (95% CI, 2.5-5.2) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) mm Hg; and side, SBP Δ 6.5 (95% CI, 5.1-7.9) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.4 (95% CI, 3.4-5.4) mm Hg. The patterns were generally consistent across subgroups. Conclusion and relevance: This crossover randomized clinical trial showed that commonly used arm positions (lap or side) resulted in substantial overestimation of BP readings and may lead to misdiagnosis and overestimation of hypertension. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05372328.
Validation of the DBP-1333b upper-arm blood pressure monitor according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standard (ISO 81060-2:2018+Amd.1:2020)

Guocun Hou,Yulu Wu,Jiaying Wang,Jia Zhi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0000000000000688

2024-01-09

Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract:To evaluate the accuracy of the DBP-1333b upper-arm blood pressure (BP) measuring device in the adult population according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standard (ISO 81060-2:2018+Amd.1:2020). Subjects were recruited in the adult population. The test device was an arm-type electronic sphygmomanometer (DBP-1333b) and the reference device was a desktop sphygmomanometer (XJ11D). Using the BP data measured by the desktop sphygmomanometer as reference BP, the accuracy of the non-invasive BP module of the test device was evaluated to determine whether it met the requirements. Data from 90 individuals were analysed. According to Criterion 1, the mean difference of SBP between the test and reference device was 0.19 mmHg and the SD was 7.45 mmHg. The mean difference of DBP was -0.59 mmHg and the SD was 6.47 mmHg. The mean difference of both SBP and DBP was less than 5 mmHg, and the SD was less than 8 mmHg, which met the requirements. According to Criterion 2, SD of SBP was 5.79 mmHg, which was less than 6.95 mmHg and met the requirements. The SD of DBP was 5.58 mmHg, which was less than 6.93 mmHg and met the requirements. It was concluded that the DBP-1333b complies with the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standard (ISO 81060-2:2018+Amd.1:2020) and can be recommended for use by the adults.

peripheral vascular disease
Blood flow restriction pressure for narrow cuffs (5 cm) cannot be estimated with precision

Robert W Spitz,Yujiro Yamada,Vickie Wong,Ryo Kataoka,William B Hammert,Jun Seob Song,Anna Kang,Aldo Seffrin,Jeremy P Loenneke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad278d

2024-02-10

Physiological Measurement

Abstract:Blood flow restriction pressures are set relative to the lowest pressure needed to occlude blood flow with that specific cuff. Due to pressure limitations of some devices, it is often not possible to occlude blood flow in all subjects and apply a known relative pressure in the lower body with a 5 cm wide cuff. Objective: To use a device capable of generating high pressures (up to 907 mmHg) to create and validate an estimation equation for the 5 cm cuff in the lower body using a 12 cm cuff. Approach: 170 participants had their arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) with a 5 cm and 12 cm cuff and their thigh circumference measured in their right leg. The sample was randomly allocated to a prediction group (66%) and validation group (33%). Thigh circumference and 12 cm AOP were used as predictors. A Bland-Altman plot was constructed to assess agreement between measured and predicted values. Main results: The mean difference (95% confidence interval) between the observed (336.8 mmHg) and the predicted (343.9 mmHg) 5 cm AOP was 7.1 (-11.9, 26.1) mmHg. The 95% limits of agreement were -133.6 to 147.8 mmHg. There was a negative relationship between the difference and the average of predicted and measured 5 cm AOP (B= -0.137, p=0.000043). Significance: Although this was the first study to quantify AOP over 600 mmHg with a 5 cm cuff, our equation is not valid across all levels of pressure. If possible, larger cuff widths should be employed in the lower body.

engineering, biomedical,biophysics,physiology
Correlating the Relationship Between Interarm Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors

Wei Ma,Baowei Zhang,Ying Yang,Litong Qi,Lei Meng,Yan Zhang,Yong Huo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.12987

2017-01-01

Abstract:Interarm systolic blood pressure difference (IASBPD) can predict cardiovascular disease. To investigate the relationship between IASBPD and cardiovascular disease risk factors, a total of 1426 individuals were studied. Blood pressure was assessed simultaneously and IASBPD was expressed as the absolute difference value (|R-L|). Cardiovascular disease risk factors were compared between the high IASBPD group (IASBPD 10mmHg) and the normal IASBPD group (IASBPD <10mmHg). An increased prevalence of hypertension, body mass index, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were observed in the high IASBPD group (P<.05), associated with the enhanced mean values of intima-media thickness and maximum intima-media thickness (P<.05). Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity was increased, while ankle-brachial index was lower in the high IASBPD group (P<.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that IASBPD 10mmHg was positively associated with body mass index (odds ratio, 1.077; P=.002) and systolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.032; P<.001), and negatively associated with ankle-brachial index (odds ratio, 0.038; P<.001).
Relationship between blood pressure repeatedly measured by a wrist-cuff oscillometric wearable blood pressure monitoring device and left ventricular mass index in working hypertensive patients

Kazuomi Kario,Naoko Tomitani,Tomoko Morimoto,Hiroshi Kanegae,Peter Lacy,Bryan Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-021-00758-3

2021-10-17

Hypertension Research

Abstract:This study sought to evaluate the relationship between blood pressure (BP) taken by a new wrist-cuff oscillometric wearable BP monitoring device and left ventricular mass index measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI-LVMI) in 50 hypertensive patients (mean age 60.5 ± 8.9 years, 92.0% men, 96% treated for hypertension) with regular employment. Participants were asked to self-measure their wearable BPs twice in the morning and evening under a guideline-recommended standardized home BP measurement, and once each at five predetermined times and any additional time points under an ambulatory condition for a maximum of 7 days. In total, 2105 wearable BP measurements (home BP: 747 [morning: 409, evening: 338], ambulatory condition: 1358 [worksite: 942]) were collected over 5.5 ± 1.2 days. The average of all wearable systolic BP (SBP) readings (129.8 ± 11.0 mmHg) was weakly correlated with cMRI-LVMI (r = 0.265, p = 0.063). Morning home wearable SBP average (128.5 ± 13.8 mmHg) was significantly correlated with cMRI-LVMI (r = 0.378, p = 0.013), but ambulatory wearable SBP average (132.5 ± 12.7 mmHg) was not (r = 0.215, p = 0.135). The averages of the highest three values of all wearable SBPs (153.3 ± 13.9 mmHg) and ambulatory wearable SBPs (152.9 ± 13.9 mmHg) were 16 mmHg higher than that of the morning home wearable SBPs (137.0 ± 15.9 mmHg). Those peak values were significantly correlated with cMRI-LVMI (r = 0.320, p = 0.023; r = 0.310, p = 0.029; r = 0.451, p = 0.002, respectively). In conclusion, an increased number of wearable BP measurements, which could detect individual peak BP, might add to the clinical value of these measurements as a complement to the guideline-recommended home BP measurements, but further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

peripheral vascular disease

Carbamylated darbepoetin derivative prevents endothelial progenitor cell damage with no effect on angiogenesis.

Which cuff should I use? Indirect blood pressure measurement for the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with obesity: a diagnostic accuracy review

PS-C08-1: ACCURACY OF CUFF BLOOD PRESSURE AND SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE AMPLIFICATION

The impact of sphygmomanometer placement and cuff placement on blood pressure measurements

Blood Pressure Measurement Multicentre Trial

Discrepancy Of Blood Pressure Between The Brachial Artery And Radial Artery

Association Between Inter-Arm Difference In Sbp And Central Blood Pressure In A Beijing Community Cohort

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

Measuring blood pressure from Korotkoff sounds as the brachial cuff inflates on average provides higher values than when the cuff deflates

Simultaneous 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement on both arms: a consideration for improving hypertension management

Evaluation of the oscillometric method for noninvasive blood pressure measurement during cuff deflation and cuff inflation with reference to intra-arterial blood pressure

Identifying Isolated Systolic Hypertension From Upper-Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Compared With Invasive Measurements

Inter‐observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement

Comparison of cuff inflation and cuff deflation brachial sphygmomanometry with intra-arterial blood pressure as reference

Validation of the DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor in the general population according to the ISO 81060-2:2018/AMD 1:2020 protocol

Elevated Interarm Systolic Blood Pressure Difference Is Positively Associated with Increased Likelihood of Coronary Artery Disease

Arm Position and Blood Pressure Readings: The ARMS Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

Validation of the DBP-1333b upper-arm blood pressure monitor according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standard (ISO 81060-2:2018+Amd.1:2020)

Blood flow restriction pressure for narrow cuffs (5 cm) cannot be estimated with precision

Correlating the Relationship Between Interarm Systolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors

Relationship between blood pressure repeatedly measured by a wrist-cuff oscillometric wearable blood pressure monitoring device and left ventricular mass index in working hypertensive patients