Abstract:Background: The non-invasive estimation of aortic systolic (aoSBP) and pulse pressure (aoPP) is achieved by a great variety of devices, which differ markedly in the: 1) principles of recording (applied technology), 2) arterial recording site, 3) model and mathematical analysis applied to signals, and/or 4) calibration scheme. The most reliable non-invasive procedure to obtain aoSBP and aoPP is not well established. Aim: To evaluate the agreement between aoSBP and aoPP values invasively and non-invasively obtained using different: 1) recording techniques (tonometry, oscilometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), 2) recording sites [radial, brachial (BA) and carotid artery (CCA)], 3) waveform analysis algorithms (e.g., direct analysis of the CCA pulse waveform vs. peripheral waveform analysis using general transfer functions, N-point moving average filters, etc.), 4) calibration schemes (systolic-diastolic calibration vs. methods using BA diastolic and mean blood pressure (bMBP); the latter calculated using different equations vs. measured directly by oscillometry, and 5) different equations to estimate bMBP (i.e., using a form factor of 33% ("033"), 41.2% ("0412") or 33% corrected for heart rate ("033HR"). Methods: The invasive aortic (aoBP) and brachial pressure (bBP) (catheterization), and the non-invasive aoBP and bBP were simultaneously obtained in 34 subjects. Non-invasive aoBP levels were obtained using different techniques, analysis methods, recording sites, and calibration schemes. Results: 1) Overall, non-invasive approaches yielded lower aoSBP and aoPP levels than those recorded invasively. 2) aoSBP and aoPP determinations based on CCA recordings, followed by BA recordings, were those that yielded values closest to those recorded invasively. 3) The "033HR" and "0412" calibration schemes ensured the lowest mean error, and the "033" method determined aoBP levels furthest from those recorded invasively. 4) Most of the non-invasive approaches considered overestimated and underestimated aoSBP at low (i.e., 80 mmHg) and high (i.e., 180 mmHg) invasive aoSBP values, respectively. 5) The higher the invasively measured aoPP, the higher the level of underestimation provided by the non-invasive methods. Conclusion: The recording method and site, the mathematical method/model used to quantify aoSBP and aoPP, and to calibrate waveforms, are essential when estimating aoBP. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for the non-invasive aoBP assessment.

Central arterial pressure and arterial pressure pulse: new views entering the second century after Korotkov.

Blood Pressure Measurement Multicentre Trial

Association of Central Arterial Blood Pressure and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Accurate detection of Korotkoff sounds reveals large discrepancy between intra-arterial systolic pressure and simultaneous noninvasive measurement of blood pressure with brachial cuff sphygmomanometry

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

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

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

Central Over Peripheral Blood Pressure: An Emerging Issue in Hypertension Research

Optimization and validation of a suprasystolic brachial cuff‐based method for noninvasively estimating central aortic blood pressure

Associations between central and brachial blood pressure in patients with hypertension and aortovascular disease: Implications for clinical practice

High-frame-rate A-mode ultrasound for calibration-free cuffless carotid pressure: feasibility study using lower body negative pressure intervention

Aortic systolic and pulse pressure invasively and non-invasively obtained: Comparative analysis of recording techniques, arterial sites of measurement, waveform analysis algorithms and calibration methods

COMPARISON OF CENTRAL SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE (CSBP) ESTIMATED BY DIRECT CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE (DCBP) FORMULA AND RADIAL TONOMETRY BY SPIGMOCOR: AN INVASIVE VALIDATION STUDY

Validation of oscillometric ratio and maximum gradient methods for non-invasive blood pressure measurement with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements as reference

Carotid Pulse Wave Analysis: Future Direction of Hemodynamic and Cardiovascular Risk Assessment

Accuracy of the WatchBP Office Central as a Type 2 device for non-invasive estimation of central aortic blood pressure in children and adolescents

Ability of a 24-h ambulatory cuffless blood pressure monitoring device to track blood pressure changes in clinical practice

Techniques for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Arterial Blood Pressure

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

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

Cuff-based blood pressure measurement: challenges and solutions