Abstract:HomeHypertensionVol. 50, No. 1Central Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive Therapy Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplementary MaterialsFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBCentral Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive TherapyA Consensus Document Enrico Agabiti-Rosei, Giuseppe Mancia, Michael F. O’Rourke, Mary J. Roman, Michel E. Safar, Harold Smulyan, Ji-Guang Wang, Ian B. Wilkinson, Bryan Williams and Charalambos Vlachopoulos Enrico Agabiti-RoseiEnrico Agabiti-Rosei From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Giuseppe ManciaGiuseppe Mancia From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Michael F. O’RourkeMichael F. O’Rourke From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Mary J. RomanMary J. Roman From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Michel E. SafarMichel E. Safar From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Harold SmulyanHarold Smulyan From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Ji-Guang WangJi-Guang Wang From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Ian B. WilkinsonIan B. Wilkinson From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author , Bryan WilliamsBryan Williams From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author and Charalambos VlachopoulosCharalambos Vlachopoulos From the Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (E.A-R.), University Hospital, Brescia, Italy; Clinica Medica and Department of Medicine (G.M.), University of Milano-Bicocca, St Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Milan, Italy; St Vincent’s Clinic/University of New South Wales (M.F.O.), Darlinghurst, Australia; Weill Medical College (M.J.R.), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Centre de Diagnostic (M.E.S.), Hopital Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Medicine (H.S.), Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (J.G.W.), Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiaotong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; University of Cambridge Addenbrooke’s Hospital (I.B.W.), Cambridge, United Kingdom; the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (B.W.), School of Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and the First Department of Cardiology (C.V.), Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece. Search for more papers by this author Originally published11 Jun 2007https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.090068Hypertension. 2007;50:154–160Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: June 11, 2007: Previous Version 1 The 2003 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension1 included 2 important novel recommendations: assessment of the total cardiovascular risk should be taken into account in the management of the hypertensive patient, and quantification of risk should include subclinical target organ damage.These guidelines acknowledged that central (aortic) blood pressure (BP), which is the pressure exerted on the heart and brain, may be different from the pressure that is measured at the arm. They also recognized that central pressure may be predictive of outcome in specific populations2 and differently affected by antihypertensive drugs. However, although these guidelines accepted that central augmentation index and pulse wave velocity may be important as measures of subclinical organ damage, they also stressed the need for prospective trials to establish their predictive values given that such studies were lacking at that time (2003).After publication of these guidelines, additional data have strengthened the pathophysiological importance of central BP. Clinical studies have indicated that central BP may have predictive value independent of the corresponding peripheral (brachial) BP. More importantly, recent large-scale trials have shown that central hemodynamics may provide a worthwhile treatment target. In addition, central hemodynamics can now be reliably assessed noninvasively with a number of devices. Accordingly, because arterial stiffening and central hemodynamics are markers and manifestations of organ damage, the pertinent key question is whether the balance of evidence on their importance and issues related to clinical practice allows for implementation in patient management.Pathophysiological Significance of Central PressuresCentral (aortic and carotid) pressures are pathophysiologically more relevant than peripheral pressures for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease.3,4 It is aortic systolic pressure that the left ventricle encounters during systole (afterload), and the aortic pressure during diastole is a determinant of coronary perfusion. Furthermore, the distending pressure in the large elastic-type arteries (aorta and carotid) is a key determinant of the degenerative changes that characterize accelerated aging and hypertension. In contrast, the muscular peripheral arteries, such as the brachial and the radial ones, are less influenced by these changes.5The pressure wave generated by the left ventricle travels down the arterial tree and then is reflected at multiple peripheral sites, mainly at resistance arteries (small muscular arteries and arterioles). Consequently, the pressure waveform recorded at any site of the arterial tree is the sum of the forward traveling waveform generated by left ventricular ejection and the backward traveling wave, the “echo” of the incident wave reflected at peripheral sites. When the large conduit arteries are healthy and compliant, the reflected wave merges with the incident in the proximal aorta during diastole, thereby augmenting the diastolic BP and aiding coronary perfusion. In contrast, when the arteries are stiff, pulse wave velocity increases, accelerating the incident and reflected waves; thus, the reflected wave merges with the incident wave in systole and augments aortic systolic rather than diastolic pressure. As a result, left ventricular afterload increases, and normal ventricular relaxation and coronary filling are compromised. Apart from changes in the timing of the waveforms merging, changes in the magnitude of the reflected wave and central pressures may result from changes in the proportion of the incident wave that is reflected, which in turn depends on the balance between vasoconstriction and vasodilatation in the peripheral circulation.Another important consideration regarding the relationship between brachial and central aortic pressure is “pressure wave amplification.” Typically, the diastolic and mean pressures change little across the arterial tree. However, systolic BP is amplified when moving from the aorta to the periphery (Figure 1).3Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Change in contours in pressure wave (top) and flow wave (bottom) between the ascending aorta and the saphenous artery (reprinted from Reference 3).Consequently, the pulsatile components of central and peripheral pressures (systolic BP and pulse pressure [PP]) may vary significantly. In general, brachial systolic and PP tend to overestimate central systolic and PP, especially in younger subjects who have more pronounced amplification. Substantial differences between central and brachial BP are also often also seen in older people, especially with tachycardia, exercise, use of vasoactive agents, or in those with systolic heart failure.Techniques to Assess Central HemodynamicsAlthough central pressures are ideally measured directly by using invasive devices, several methods have been devised currently to derive central pressures from analyses of applanated carotid and radial pulses or carotid distension waves.6 Among several commercial and noncommercial devices,3,6–11 the most widely used in clinical studies is the SphygmoCor device (AtCor Medical), which uses radial or carotid pulses and a validated generalized transfer function to estimate central pressures from the peripheral signal (Figure 2). When the applanated radial waveform is calibrated using direct intra-arterial pressures, the SphygmoCor calculations of aortic pressures are accurate,8,12 whereas the accuracy of this, as well as of other peripheral artery methods, decreases when the radial pulses are calibrated using inaccurate cuff pressures.13 This is also the case for carotid artery techniques. Alternatively, because mean BP remains virtually constant from central to peripheral arteries, the mean BP value computed from the area of the applanated carotid artery waveform can be calibrated using the mean BP obtained at the brachial artery level. Values of carotid pressures can then be derived.6,11 It should be emphasized that even when central pressures cannot be accurately calculated, these methods can display several features of the aortic (or carotid) pulse that are not dependent on the absolute values of BP, such as amplification of the pulse wave between central and peripheral artery, augmentation index, and arrival time of the reflected wave (the latter 2 are, however, dependent on identification of inflection point). Furthermore, because these features are also influenced by factors including heart rate, height, and age, modern computational capability could allow weighting of these factors in appropriate formulas. Potential problems related to the widespread application of arterial tonometry include appropriate training, supervision, and quality control, as they do for sphygmomanometry. Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Central pressure waveform. The height of the late systolic peak above the inflection defines the augmented pressure, and the ratio of augmented pressure to PP defines the augmentation index (in percentage; modified from Reference 6).Arterial wave reflections indices and central pressures coupled with measurement of aortic pulse wave velocity, a direct measure of arterial stiffness, constitute a comprehensive and integrated approach of the study of arterial function.6 This is further highlighted by a possible differential ability to predict risk (augmentation index is better in younger persons and pulse wave velocity is better in older persons14) or by situations where, contrary to the usual behavior, pulse wave velocity and wave reflection indices move in opposite directions.15Central Pressures and Central Indices as Markers and Predictors of DiseaseCentral hemodynamic variables have been shown to be independently associated with organ damage, incident cardiovascular disease, and events both in the general population and in various disease states.2,16–40Tables 1 and 2 show such associations according to population studied, variable measured, and site and mode (invasive or noninvasive) of measurement. TABLE 1. Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Studies Indicating the Independent Value of Central Hemodynamics as Markers of Disease and Predictors of Surrogate Cardiovascular End PointsSourceYear, CountryPopulationDesignParameterEnd PointAIx indicates augmentation index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; FU, follow-up; IMT, intima–media thickness; LV, left ventricular; LVMI, left ventricular mass index.*Central pressure measured directly.†These studies have shown incremental value of central indices over peripheral BP.Saba et al16*†1993, United StatesNormotensivesCross-sectionalCarotid AIxLVMI, carotid thicknessBoutouyrie et al17*†1999, FranceHypertensivesCross-sectionalCarotid PPCarotid thicknessBoutouyrie et al18*†2000, FranceHypertensivesLongitudinal (9-month FU)Carotid PPCarotid IMT reduction with treatmentRoman et al192000, United StatesNormotensives, HypertensivesCross-sectionalCarotid systolic BPRelative LV wall thicknessWaddell et al20*†2001, AustraliaCADCross-sectionalCarotid BPExtent of CADNishijima et al21*2001, JapanSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic fractional PPIncident CADNurnberger et al222002, GermanyHealthy+CVDCross-sectionalCarotid AIxCV risk scoresPhilippe et al23*2002, FranceCADCross-sectionalAortic PPExtent of CADHayashi et al24*2002, JapanSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic AIxIncident CADDe Luca et al25†2004, REASON StudyHypertensivesLongitudinal (1-year FU)Carotid PPLVMI reductionWeber et al262004, AustriaSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic AP, AIxIncident CADJankowski et al27*2004, PolandCADCross-sectionalAortic BPExtent of CADDanchin et al28*2004, FranceSuspected CADCross-sectionalAortic PPIncidence and extent of CADBooth et al292004, United KingdomSystemic vasculitisCross-sectionalAortic AIxDisease activityRoman et al302007, United StatesHigh-riskCross-sectionalAortic PPCarotid IMT and massHashimoto et al31†2007, JapanHypertensivesLongitudinal (1-year FU)Aortic AIxLVMI reduction with treatmentTABLE 2. Longitudinal Studies Indicating the Independent Value of Central Hemodynamics as Predictors of EventsSourceYear, countryPopulationDesignParameterEnd PointESRD indicates end-stage renal disease; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; AIx, augmentation index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; FU, follow-up.*Central pressure measured directly.†These studies have shown incremental value of central indices over peripheral BP.Nakayama et al32*2000, JapanCAD-PTCALongitudinal (3-mo FU)Aortic fractional PPRestenosisLu et al33*2001, ChinaCAD-PTCALongitudinal (6-mo FU)Aortic PPRestenosisLondon et al34†2001, FranceESRDLongitudinal (52-mo FU)Carotid AIxCV mortalitySafar et al2†2002, FranceESRDLongitudinal (52-mo FU)Carotid PP, PP amplificationAll-cause and CV mortalityUeda et al35*2004, JapanCAD-PTCALongitudinal (6-mo FU)Aortic AIxRestenosisChirinos et al36*†2005, United StatesCADLongitudinal (3.2-y FU)Aortic APCV mortality and eventsWeber et al37†2005, AustriaCAD-PTCALongitudinal (2-y FU)Aortic AIxCV mortality and eventsDart et al382006, AustraliaElderly female hypertensivesLongitudinal (4.1-y FU)Carotid AIx, brachial BPCV mortality and eventsWilliams et al39†2006 CAFE StudyHypertensivesLongitudinal (≤4-y FU)Aortic PPCV mortality and events during treatmentRoman et al30,40†2005 and 2007, United StatesHigh-riskLongitudinal (4.8-y FU)Aortic PPCV mortality and eventsCentral Pressures and Central Indices as Markers of Disease and Predictors of Surrogate End PointsIncreased aortic augmentation index is associated with coronary artery disease.26 Central pressures also correlate with cardiovascular risk not only in patients with atherosclerotic disease but also in apparently healthy subjects.22 The late systolic augmentation of the central pressure waveform is associated with an increase in left ventricular mass index independent of age and mean BP,16,31 and carotid systolic BP is an independent determinant of left ventricular wall thickness.19 Moreover, central pressure is also more closely related to other important cardiovascular intermediate end points, such as vascular hypertrophy, extent of carotid atherosclerosis,17,30 and the ascending aorta diameter in patients with Marfan syndrome41 than brachial pressure. Recently, higher carotid pressure augmentation in older individuals has been linked to increased flow pulsations entering the cerebral circulation, which may increase the risk of cerebral microvascular damage.42 In inflammatory disorders such as systemic vasculitis, augmentation index is a marker of disease activity, and it is independently associated with levels of C-reactive protein.29Central Pressures and Central Indices as Predictors of EventsRecent data from the Strong Heart Study confirm that peripheral PP, a simple index of arterial stiffness, is associated with a higher cardiovascular mortality independent of traditional risk factors, left ventricular hypertrophy, and reduced ejection fraction in adults without overt coronary heart disease.43 Furthermore, data from the same study showed in a 5-year follow-up that the noninvasively determined central PP better predicts incident cardiovascular disease than does the corresponding brachial PP, possibly because of a more accurate representation of the vascular load on the left ventricle.30,40 The predictive value of central PP is significant even when subclinical atherosclerosis is taken into account.30,40 Central pressures and wave reflection indices are also strong independent predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with end-stage renal failure.2,34 Moreover, in patients with coronary artery disease, wave reflections as expressed by central augmented pressure are powerful and independent predictors of recurrent acute coronary events or death.36 Pulsatility of the ascending aortic pressure waveform is a powerful predictor of restenosis after angioplasty.32,33 Moreover, increased arterial wave reflections expressed by augmentation index are independently associated with an increased risk of severe short- and long-term cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.37 In contrast to the aforementioned evidence, a recent study conducted in elderly hypertensive women found that carotid augmentation index is not predictive of outcome.38 However, the large Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) Study reported that central PP derived from radial artery applanation tonometry independently predicts outcome in treated patients with hypertension.39 Highlighting the interplay of small and large arteries in risk determination, the structure of small arteries (which compose the main peripheral reflecting sites) was a predictor of events in patients with hypertension.44It should be noted, however, that evidence for a specific central pressure component or index does not necessarily apply to the others, and, thus, they should not be used interchangeably. Furthermore, there is clearly a need for additional studies of central pressures and indices in more general populations or in other disease states. Finally, it would be desirable for future studies to address whether central pressures provide incremental and independent prognostic value over other emerging biomarkers.Implications for TherapyBP reduction, per se, is the major determinant of the benefit of antihypertensive treatment. This has been shown by data from placebo-controlled trials, trials that compared more intensive versus less intensive BP-lowering strategies, and trials comparing different active regimens, and it is further supported by large meta-analyses of studies on antihypertensive treatment1,45–47 (Figure 3). Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 3. Metaregression line relating the within-trial difference in systolic BP to the odds ratios for stroke. Odds ratios were calculated for experimental vs reference treatment. BP differences were obtained by subtracting achieved levels in experimental groups from those in reference groups. At left, pressure is the brachial measured, whereas at right, pressure is the estimated central pressure allowed for the decrease over brachial pressure of 3 mm Hg when the active therapy was a drug that reduces peripheral wave reflection (calcium channel blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or angiotensin receptor blocker). The curvilinear metaregression line (left) becomes linear (right) when central rather than peripheral pressures are plotted against odds ratios, indicating a direct relation between cardiovascular outcome and pressure changes induced by antihypertensive treatment (from References 3 and 45).However, during the last decade, important multicenter trials gave rise to the hypothesis that new antihypertensive drugs, such as blockers of the renin–angiotensin system, may reduce cardiovascular outcomes beyond (peripheral) BP control. Particularly, in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE), and the Australian National Blood Pressure 2 (ANBP2) studies, the observed clinical benefit tended to be greater than that expected from the decrease in peripheral BP. These potential effects “beyond BP control” are perhaps accounted for by protective properties of different drugs that affect subclinical organ damage or intermediate end points, such as arterial properties or central BP, for which there is evidence that they are related to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.1,48 Effects on central pressures may not be evident by pressure measurements in the periphery, because the reflected wave is added to a different part of the central waveform.49 This may explain why drugs with similar reduction in peripheral pressures have a differential impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this context, a short-term (4-week treatment) study showed that, in contrast to β-blocking drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium blockers may be more effective in reducing aortic systolic BP than that indicated by brachial pressure measurements.50 Furthermore, more recent studies comparing the acute effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ramipril) and the short-term (6-week) effects of angiotensin receptor blockers (eprosartan) with atenolol showed that, for a similar fall of brachial pressure, inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin axis may cause a significantly greater fall o

Abstract:Journal of Extracellular VesiclesVolume 6, Issue 1 1396823 Editorial of the ISEV boardOpen Access Updating the MISEV minimal requirements for extracellular vesicle studies: building bridges to reproducibility Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/20013078.2017.1396823Citations: 110AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat An editorial describing "minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles (EVs)", or more simply "minimal information for studies of EVs (MISEV)" was published in the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles in late 2014 [1]. Similar to guidelines in other scientific fields [2-4], "MISEV2014", as we will call it here, provided recommendations on experimental methods and minimal information in reporting. Specifically, three key areas were addressed: EV isolation/purification, EV characterization and EV functional studies (see Text Box 1). Table Text Box 1. Major recommendations of MISEV2014. 1. EV separation/isolation a) There is no single optimal isolation method, so choose based on the downstream applications and scientific question b) Report all details of the method(s) for reproducibility 2. EV characterization a) General characterization. Show: i. At least three positive protein markers of EVs, including at least one -transmembrane/lipid-bound protein -cytosolic protein ii. At least one negative protein marker b) Characterization of single vesicles: use two different but complementary techniques, for example: i. electron or atomic force microscopy (and show both close-up and wide-field) ii. single particle tracking 3. Functional studies should include: a) Dose–response studies b) Process controls to rule out influence of serum components/other possible contaminants c-i.) Density gradients to show activity is intrinsic to EVs, not just associated or c-ii.) EV depletion to remove activity or c-iii.) EV/cell labelling (e.g., fluorescent labelling, with careful interpretation) Brief review of MISEV2014 On separation of EVs (also referred to as isolation, purification or concentration), MISEV2014 acknowledged that there is no consensus on an "optimal" method, such as ultracentrifugation, size exclusion or immunoaffinity. Instead, selection of a method should be guided by the relevant scientific question and downstream applications, and all details of the method should be provided to ensure reproducibility. MISEV2014 recommended that EVcharacterization be performed at both the population and single vesicle levels. For the former, both positive and negative protein marker characterization was endorsed, following four categories of proteins: (1) transmembrane or lipid-bound EV protein, (2) EV cytosolic protein, (3) intracellular but not associated with plasma membrane or endosomes (i.e. relatively less abundant in exosomal EVs than in cells) and (4) extracellular but not typically EV-associated proteins. Several examples of proteins in each category were provided. For characterization of single vesicles, as a means to assess population heterogeneity, MISEV2014 called for the use of at least two different but complementary technologies. For example, electron or atomic force microscopy could be paired with one of the single particle tracking methods. Furthermore, close-up images should be accompanied by wide-field views to allow assessment of heterogeneity. For EV functional studies, MISEV2014 stated that quantitation of EVs and their activity should include dose–response studies. Process controls should be included, since contaminants might contribute activity. Use of density gradients was encouraged to show that any observed activity is intrinsic to EVs and not to closely associated, commonly co-purifying particles; alternatively, this activity should be depletable, e.g. by immunodepletion of EVs. Labelling studies were also recommended. Rigour vs flexibility MISEV2014 reflected a field in flux, with a need for standard development tempered by remaining uncertainties. Indeed, this is still the case. For this reason, the protein markers for general characterization that were listed in a table in the manuscript were presented as non-exclusive examples only, and no specific antibodies were recommended. Our understanding of categories such as "EV proteins" and "non-EV proteins" is still evolving, and these categories might better be labelled "EV-enriched" and "EV-depleted". Some described non-EV proteins have been found in vesicles and have biological effects. Instead of an inflexible approach, MISEV2014 urged that markers from different categories be used, and that all antibody details and sample manipulations be reported to ensure interpretability and reproducibility. What if scientists could not follow all guidelines? In this case, they were encouraged to explain why certain experiments could not be performed. The example of low-abundance, precious samples was given explicitly. That is, guidance was accompanied by acknowledgement of the realities of the field. Utility of MISEV2014 The value of MISEV2014 is supported by a key finding of van Deun and Hendrix [5] reporting on the release of the EV-TRACK knowledgebase [6]. The EV-TRACK project includes an "EV-METRIC" that can be calculated to gauge the quality of reporting of each EV-related paper. van Deun et al. found that, in the year after the release of MISEV2014, the EV-METRICs of publications overall did not improve significantly. However, publications that cited MISEV2014 had significantly higher EV-METRICs. Those who engaged with MISEV2014, then, seemed to be better equipped to report important experimental parameters. Of course, it takes time for laboratories to incorporate new methodologies and then go on to publish a paper based on them. Laboratories that were unaware of the MISEV effort before its publication may simply not have had time to incorporate the guidelines by the time our survey took place. How far has MISEV reached? Citations of MISEV2014 reached 400 in September 2017, according to Google Scholar. However, this number represents only a minority of EV-related publications. While MISEV is likely followed in many publications that do not cite it, and citations per se are certainly not the goal of standardization efforts, the MISEV2014 citation rate nonetheless suggests that broader dissemination and researcher involvement could be achieved. Opportunities and pulse-checking The ISEV community now faces choices to extend the value and reach of MISEV2014. Whereas MISEV2014 was produced by the ISEV Board of Directors as the elected representatives of ISEV – at that time including the three editors-in-chief of the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles – future developments will benefit from the input of a much broader authorship. Drawing on more expertise will allow a future iteration or offshoot of MISEV2014 to offer more detailed guidance in more areas, and/or to reflect greater consensus. A first step in this direction was to take the pulse of the community on where we came from (MISEV2014) and where we are going with standardization. 2016 MISEV survey: obtaining guidance from the experts A 14-question MISEV survey was released to the ISEV membership on 24 October 2016. See Text Box 2 for an outline of the survey. A total of 187 responses were submitted: 81% (152) within a 24-hour period, and almost 95% within 5 days. The survey was closed in early 2017. Table Text Box 2. ISEV 2016 MISEV survey. 1. I have read the MISEV minimal requirements paper (Lötvall et al., JEV, 2014) (yes/no) 2. I have published on extracellular vesicles in 2015 and/or 2016 (yes/no) 3. In your recent EV publication(s), did you (follow/cite/not follow or cite) MISEV? 4. Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field? (yes/no) 5. Which of the following most closely summarizes your opinion on minimal requirements in the EV field? ° Minimal requirements are important, and I support MISEV ° Minimal requirements are important, and MISEV does not go far enough to uphold standards ° Minimal requirements are important, but MISEV is too restrictive ° Minimal requirements such as MISEV are an unnecessary imposition on the EV field ° I don't have strong feelings about minimal requirements 6. If standards are to be adopted, which of the following is preferable? ° ISEV, with a large and diverse membership, should continue to take the lead in establishing minimal requirements ° Minimal requirements are better established by national societies or regional collaborative networks ° Leading experts or laboratories should develop and publish their own standards, and the best (highest IF or most cited) publications will eventually become the de facto standards in the field ° I have no preference 7. An update to MISEV is planned … how should it proceed? ° The ISEV board and JEV editors should update MISEV as they see fit. ° The ISEV board should also recruit ISEV members who are not on the board to assist in updating MISEV ° The ISEV community as a whole should be involved in updating MISEV, with invitations to contribute to specific points; community-wide voting is not needed ° The ISEV community should be involved not only in contributing/feedback, but also in voting to ratify specific points 8. Please comment on sections/types of information should be retained in future MISEV updates (check all that are applicable) ° minimal requirements to claim the presence of EVs in isolates ° general characterization of EVs ° characterization of single EVs ° studies of functional activities of EVs ° recommendations for controls ° other/comments on the above 9. Needed additions to MISEV include: ° Advice on pros and cons of different isolation methods ° Advice on protein markers to use for different types of EVs ° Advice on reliable antibodies for the EV protein markers, for different applications (WB, flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, EM, etc.) ° Other (please specify) 10. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please provide your email address. Note: There will be additional opportunities to join the effort if you prefer not to disclose here. (Free form, optional) 11. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please describe your expertise in the EV field (e.g., published articles, unpublished work, specific areas of interest) (short answer, optional) 12. The following ISEV members should be consulted on MISEV updates (free form, optional) 13. If required, I/my laboratory are likely willing and able to devote a reasonable amount of resources to evaluate specific methods/reagents in the laboratory as needed to support a new MISEV release or other field-wide evaluation (yes/no) 14. Please share any other comments you may have (free form, optional) Respondents and their engagement with the MISEV2014 guidelines (Questions 1–3) Eighty-two per cent of respondents had read the MISEV2014 guidelines, whereas 18% had not. Fifty-six per cent of all respondents had published on EVs in 2015 or 2016 (i.e. after MISEV2014 appeared), whereas 44% had not. A slightly larger percentage of recent authors had read MISEV2014 (87%) compared with those who had not published on EVs recently (74%, Figure 1(a)). Seventy-one per cent of recently publishing authors indicated that they followed and/or cited MISEV2014 in their work (Figure 1(b)). Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Community engagement with MISEV. Perceived importance of guidelines (Questions 4 and 5) Since the MISEV2014 authors have received a wide range of praise and critical comments on the guidelines, we sought to determine how the ISEV community viewed EV reporting or experimental guidelines in general and MISEV2014 specifically. When the question was phrased, "Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field?" (Question 4), only one respondent answered "no" (Figure 2(a)). There was thus near-unanimity among respondents that requirements are needed. A diversity of underlying opinions became apparent, though, through Question 5, a multiple-choice question about MISEV2014 in particular. Almost all respondents saw requirements as "important", and a majority (53%) supported MISEV2014 as is. However, 25% considered MISEV2014 to be too restrictive, whereas 16% said it was not stringent enough (Figure 2(b)). Four per cent thought that MISEV2014 was an unnecessary imposition on the field. In conclusion, most survey participants are in favour of standards, with a majority of respondents supporting MISEV2014. It is clear, though, that sizeable portions of the ISEV constituency might favour updates and changes to MISEV2014. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Opinions about minimal requirements in the EV field. Who should update MISEV2014 (Questions 6 and 7)? As for ISEV's role in updates to MISEV2014, approximately 80% of respondents named ISEV, "with its large and diverse membership", as the ideal body to issue requirements (Figure 3(a)). Other responses included "no preference" and nods to local or regional societies. Around 10% of respondents suggested that individual laboratories or scientists should publish requirements and that those with the highest impact factors or citations would become the de facto standards. The overwhelming emphasis on ISEV, however, places a responsibility on the society – leadership and membership – to advance standardization efforts for the field. One unambiguous outcome of the survey was that ISEV board members and JEV editors are not encouraged to update MISEV2014 alone. This approach was endorsed by only 4% of respondents (Figure 3(b)). Thirty-five per cent of participants asked the ISEV board to include ISEV members who are not on the board, and 62% felt that the entire ISEV community should be invited to participate. Of the latter group, approximately three in four said that community voting would not be necessary, whereas one in four favoured community-wide voting on specific points. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Who should establish and update minimal requirements? Assembling a team for ongoingstandardization efforts A key goal of the MISEV2014 survey was to begin the process of identifying EV experts in addition to the previous MISEV2014 authorship and the ISEV Board of Directors who are able and willing to contribute to future community efforts. Sixty-eight respondents volunteered by providing their email addresses. Only two of these respondents were MISEV2014 authors or members of the ISEV Board of Directors. Fifty-six of the volunteers gave details of their areas of expertise, including publications in many cases. Additionally, 20 respondents suggested other EV experts who, in their view, should be involved in future updates to MISEV. These names included 22 who were not authors of the previous MISEV2014 publication and are not on the current ISEV board. Only minimal overlap between the "volunteers" and "volunteered" was observed. Thus, in total, approximately 85 unique individuals were identified as possible contributors. As stated in the survey, additional calls for volunteers will be made in the future. What topics should be retained or added (Questions 8 and 9)? The majority of respondents were in favour of keeping all current components of MISEV2014, with 85% or more supporting retention of minimal requirements to claim presence of EVs in isolates, general characterization of EVs and suggestions for controls. Smaller majorities endorsed retention of single EV guidelines and recommendations for functional studies (Figure 4(a)). What should or could be added in future MISEV updates? For Question 9, three choices were provided (specific recommendations on isolation methods, specific antibodies for detection and markers of multiple subtypes), along with an "other" comments box. While the way in which the survey was constructed prevented selection of more than one choice, the responses including the free-form comments made it clear that all selections were popular (Figure 4(b)). Updated recommendations on isolation methods were requested, including assessment of the proliferating commercial kit-based options to isolate EVs. Recommendations for judging the purity of vesicles were emphasized: while the presence of EVs is often shown, the presence and percentage of contaminants continue to be often ignored. Respondents suggested that contaminants could be categorized further based on EV sources (biofluids, tissues, cell-culture conditioned medium). Some felt that lists of reliable antibodies to detect EV positive or negative protein markers would be helpful, as well as guidelines on RNA, lipids and other EV components. Further guidelines on isolation method for functional studies were also raised, since isolation methods with different resultant purities may alter the functional roles of EV in vivo. Issuing from this problem, recommendations on experimental measurement of the activity of impurities were deemed important to place the functional roles of EVs in proper context. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint MISEV: suggested retentions and additions. Positive and negative markers and contamination Examining the free-form comments for Questions 8 and 9, multiple responses addressed the problem of contamination and positive and negative markers. How does one recognize and quantitate the various possible contaminants? Can we arrive at a consensus purity measurement? How can activity of non-EV components be excluded in functional studies? What is a negative marker? Is it found exclusively in non-EV contaminants, or can it also be present, if at reduced relative amounts, in EVs? Should positive EV markers merely be found in EVs, or must they also be enriched? Other suggestions for additions Several commenters stressed the need to accommodate studies of EVs from rare cell types, low-abundance body fluids and other exceptions, and not simply take a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Recommendations on different subtypes of EVs were an item of interest for several respondents, as were newer or newly applied methods for EV separation. Other comments suggested topics such as storage of EVs, assessment of stability and omics analysis specific to EVs. Final comments box A final comments box in the survey was used by <7% of respondents. Most of these free-form responses were positive general comments on MISEV. One comment suggested that, for a MISEV update, a comprehensive review of methodologies might be useful. Several commenters emphasized that any future MISEV release should continue to allow for exceptions: cases where the requirements might be waived or recognized as inapplicable. Further action from the community to spread the word about EV minimal standards to journals and journal editors was also encouraged. Where do we go from here? Building bridges to enhance reproducibility in research Revealing and centralizing methodologic details are part of successful standardization. To this end, we recognize with enthusiasm the EV-TRACK knowledgebase that was announced in Nature Methods [6] and in the accompanying letter to the editor [5]. We strongly encourage EV researchers to join the EV-TRACK initiative (www.evtrack.org), to use its tools to help guide effective research design and evaluation, and to obtain an EV-METRIC for each manuscript. We also hope the EV-METRIC will be included in submissions to the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles and to other journals, as well. How will MISEV be updated? In addition to exciting initiatives like EV-TRACK, minimal requirements in the field must also be updated regularly. This will be a large task as the field grows, and input is sought from a wider swath. We were interested to read a "guidelines to guidelines" recently published by Daniel J. Klionsky [7], noted autophagy researcher and the driving force behind the well-known autophagy guidelines. These guidelines, published in 2008 [8] and updated in 2012 [9] and 2016 [10], now include several thousand authors who reviewed the text and offered changes in a carefully guided manner. Klionsky's staged writing process and a distributed author invitation plan ensure efficient progress but broad embrace of the global research body. In our view, the type of community consensus and buy-in fostered by this approach is exactly what we feel would be most valuable to EV researchers in an upcoming manifestation of the MISEV guidelines and also consistent with what the MISEV survey respondents indicated about their willingness and desire to be involved. Regarding uncertainty Standardization through MISEV updates is important, but of course uncertainty will remain that cannot be removed through minimal requirements alone. On many specific questions in EV research, including, for example, some quite basic matters of pre-analytical variables, the jury is still out. Careful comparisons to resolve these questions are conducted and published less often than might be optimal. This is because of the resources they require, resources that could otherwise be channelled into evaluating biological hypotheses that are more likely to secure funding. Importantly – and perhaps surprisingly to those who are less familiar with our highly collaborative field – 55% of respondents to the MISEV survey said that they or their laboratories could "devote reasonable resources" to evaluations, if these were to become necessary for MISEV updates. The language was kept intentionally vague, but "evaluations" could mean anything from literature reviews to technical/experimental comparisons. It is encouraging that such a large percentage of participants indicated a willingness to engage in coordinated activities. As needed, a Standardization Committee of ISEV could be formed to establish working groups on topics that have not been fully addressed and thus focus the substantial energies of the community. Summary Overall, the response to the ISEV survey on MISEV2014 produced three core findings: the value of MISEV2014, the need for regular updates that involve the wider community and the strong commitment of the ISEV community to advance the field through standardization efforts. Acknowledgements The contributions of all respondents to the MISEV2014 survey are gratefully acknowledged. The drafting authors would like to mention funding sources: US NIH DA040385 (KWW and CT), US NIH AG057430 (KWW) and US DoD W81XWH-16-1-0736 (CS). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Biography KWW, CT, AF and MHM prepared the survey. KWW and CS analysed the results and wrote the manuscript. CT provided writing and planning assistance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and provided feedback. References 1Lotvall J, Hill AF, Hochberg F, et al. Minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles and their functions: a position statement from the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles [Internet]. 2014; 3: 1. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536934 2Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem [Internet]. 2009 Feb 28; 55(4): 611– 8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246619 3Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet [Internet]. 2001 Dec 01; 29(4): 365– 371. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726920 4Lee JA, Spidlen J, Boyce K, et al. MIFlowCyt: the minimum information about a flow cytometry experiment. Cytom Part A [Internet]. 2008 Oct; 73A(10): 926– 930. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752282 5van Deun J, Hendrix A. Is your article EV-TRACKed? J Extracell Vesicles. Forthcoming 2017; 1. 6van Deun J, Mestdagh P, Agostinis P, et al. EV-TRACK: transparent reporting and centralizing knowledge in extracellular vesicle research. Nat Methods [Internet]. 2017 Feb 28; 14(3): 228– 232. [cited 2017 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28245209 7Klionsky DJ. Developing a set of guidelines for your research field: a practical approach. Mol Biol Cell [Internet]. 2016 Mar 1; 27(5): 733– 738. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26915690 8Klionsky DJ, Abeliovich H, Agostinis P, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes. Autophagy [Internet]. 2008 Feb; 4(2): 151– 175. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188003 9Klionsky D, Agholme L, Agnello M, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy Autophagy. 2012; 8(4): 445– 544. 10Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition). doi.org [Internet]. 2016 Jan 2. p. 1– 222. (1). [cited 2017 Sep 21]. Available form: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26799652 Citing Literature Volume6, Issue1December 20171396823 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

The Asia–Pacific Working Party on Non‐alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Guidelines 2017—part 2: Management and Special Groups

Asia–Pacific Working Party on Non‐alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Guidelines 2017—part 1: Definition, Risk Factors and Assessment

Expert Consensus on Perioperative Medications During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Lesions (2015, Suzhou, China)

Ruxolitinib Combined with Dexamethasone in Adult Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Single‐center Pilot Trial

An Optimized Integrin Α6‐targeted Peptide for Positron Emission Tomography/magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer and Its Precancerous Lesion

Withdrawal: Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Upgraded “2C3L” Versus PVI Approach for Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: PROMPT‐AF Trial Design

Detection of Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Directly from Urine Samples in Patients Suspected of Urinary Tract Infection by Metagenomics Nanopore Sequencing: A Large-Scale Multi-Centre Study

Central Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive Therapy: a Consensus Document.

Persistent Viral Activity, Cytokine Storm, and Lung Fibrosis in a Case of Severe COVID‐19

ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: The delivery of ambulatory diabetes care to children and adolescents with diabetes

Updating the MISEV Minimal Requirements for Extracellular Vesicle Studies: Building Bridges to Reproducibility

Reporting Assessment of Multicenter Clinical Trial Protocols: A Cross-Sectional Study

Is It Time to Reappraise Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets?

UHMK 1 Promotes Gastric Cancer Progression Through Reprogramming Nucleotide Metabolism

The Concentrated Antibody from Convalescent Plasma Balanced the Dysfunctional Immune Responses in Patients with Critical COVID‐19

The Monoamine Oxidase-B Inhibitor Selegiline Does Not Affect 18 F-Florzolotau Uptake in Patients with Progressive Supranuclear Palsy: A Longitudinal Case Series.

OEM China Water Storage Bladder Tanks OEM/ODM Quotes - Rongda

Impact of Pulsatile Flow on Vital Organ Recovery During Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Neonates and Infants

Molecular- and organelle-based predictive paradigm underlying recovery by left ventricular assist device support.

Characteristics of Patients with Spontaneous Versus Drug-Induced Brugada Electrocardiogram: Sub-Analysis from the SABRUS

Sudden Cardiac Death Prediction And Prevention Report From A National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute And Heart Rhythm Society Workshop