Abstract:Background Pulse wave analysis using the SphygmoCor system allows the estimation of central blood pressures (BP). However, there is controversy over its accuracy for clinical use. Methods In 45 patients undergoing coronary angiography, we compared the ascending aorta BPs measured by the invasive catheter with the estimations by the SphygmoCor system, using paired t-tests, simple correlation analysis and Bland–Altman plots. Results The estimation of central systolic BP by SphygmoCor was lower, although statistically insignificant, than that measured by the catheter (144 ± 29 vs. 148 ± 30 mm Hg; P = 0.98). The SD of the difference amounted to 17 mm Hg. Both measured and estimated central systolic BPs were significantly (P < 0.001) lower than the brachial systolic BP (156 ± 30 mm Hg). The diastolic BP measured at the brachial artery (87 ± 15 mm Hg) and provided by SphygmoCor (90 ± 15 mm Hg) were systematically higher (P < 0.001) than that measured by the catheter (74 ± 13 mm Hg). The SphygmoCor system underestimated the central pulse pressure by − 20 ± 14 mm Hg compared to the catheter method. The correlation coefficients for systolic BP, diastolic BP and pulse pressure between catheter measurements and the SphygmoCor estimations were 0.84, 0.60 and 0.82 (P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions When the radial waveform was calibrated with the oscillometric brachial pressures, the SphygmoCor system could not provide accurate estimation of central BPs. The inaccurate measurement of cuff pressure was the major limiting factor for the use of the transfer function in the clinical settings. Background Pulse wave analysis using the SphygmoCor system allows the estimation of central blood pressures (BP). However, there is controversy over its accuracy for clinical use. Methods In 45 patients undergoing coronary angiography, we compared the ascending aorta BPs measured by the invasive catheter with the estimations by the SphygmoCor system, using paired t-tests, simple correlation analysis and Bland–Altman plots. Results The estimation of central systolic BP by SphygmoCor was lower, although statistically insignificant, than that measured by the catheter (144 ± 29 vs. 148 ± 30 mm Hg; P = 0.98). The SD of the difference amounted to 17 mm Hg. Both measured and estimated central systolic BPs were significantly (P < 0.001) lower than the brachial systolic BP (156 ± 30 mm Hg). The diastolic BP measured at the brachial artery (87 ± 15 mm Hg) and provided by SphygmoCor (90 ± 15 mm Hg) were systematically higher (P < 0.001) than that measured by the catheter (74 ± 13 mm Hg). The SphygmoCor system underestimated the central pulse pressure by − 20 ± 14 mm Hg compared to the catheter method. The correlation coefficients for systolic BP, diastolic BP and pulse pressure between catheter measurements and the SphygmoCor estimations were 0.84, 0.60 and 0.82 (P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions When the radial waveform was calibrated with the oscillometric brachial pressures, the SphygmoCor system could not provide accurate estimation of central BPs. The inaccurate measurement of cuff pressure was the major limiting factor for the use of the transfer function in the clinical settings.

A8418 Comparison and Analysis of Blood Pressure Measurement Between Septum and Conventional Arm in Electrocardiogram Monitoring

Comparison between Korotkoff sound method and vulnerarious method in the blood measurement in atrial fibrillation patients

Blood Pressure Measurement Multicentre Trial

Unattended versus conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients

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

Comparison of blood pressure control standards based on home blood pressure monitoring and automated office blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in Shared Care Clinic

Validation of the Central Blood Pressure Estimation by the SphygmoCor System in Chinese

The Effect of Three Different Cuff/Arm Circumference Ratios Ranging over 80% on Cuff Blood Pressure Measurements

Comparison Study of Central Blood Pressure and Wave Reflection Obtained from Tonometry-Based Devices

Comparative Study on the Same Limb's Brachial Artery Blood Pressure with Sleeve Placed in Two Ways

Comparative Analysis of the Measurement Outcome Between Invasive Intra-arterial Blood Pressure of Nuchal Arteries and Conventional Cuff Blood Pressure

Comparison of Augmentation Index and Central Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by Two Devices

Comparison of the Mean of the First Two Blood Pressure Readings with the Overall Mean of Three Readings on a Single Occasion.

Validation of the HONSUN LD-578 blood pressure monitor for home blood pressure monitoring according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol.

Validation of the A&D Ua-1020 Upper-Arm Blood Pressure Monitor with Six Different-Shaped or Different-Sized Cuffs According to the British Hypertension Society Protocol

Low Concordance Between Blood Pressures Measured in Periodic Health Examinations and in a Workplace-Based Hypertension Management Program

Validation of the Pangao PG-800B26 Upper Arm Blood Pressure Monitor in the General Population According to the European Society of Hypertension and the British Hypertension Society Protocols.

A1538 Comparison Between 24-Hour Brachial and Central Blood Pressures and Variability in Their Associations with Target Organ Damage in Untreated Chinese

ACCURACY AND BLOOD PRESSURE THRESHOLD CONTROL ANALYSIS OF UNATTENDED AUTOMATED OFFICE BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY BASED ON MULTICENTER POPULATIONS

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

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE AKTIIA CUFFLESS MONITOR AND STANDARD 24-H AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR