Methodological evaluation of the noninvasive estimation of central systolic blood pressure in nontreated patients: the Bogalusa Heart Study.

Camilo Fernandez, Robert Hsu, Gary Sander, Azad Hussain, Rupert Barshop, Shengxu Li, Tian Shu, Tao Zhang, Patrycja Galazka, Wei Chen, Lydia Bazzano, Thomas D Giles
Author Information
  1. Camilo Fernandez: aDepartment of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine bHeart and Vascular Institute, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana cHeartGEN Institute dHeart and Vascular Center, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the estimation of central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) obtained by two different noninvasive devices, in addition to its comparisons with measured peripheral systolic blood pressure (pSBP), in a biracial (Black/White) community-based cohort.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Estimations of cSBP by applanation tonometry were obtained in 586 participants of the Bogalusa Heart Study (mean age: 43.5 years; 69% White, 54% women) using two different commonly used instruments: Omron HEM-9000AI and SphygmoCor CPV. pSBP was measured using a standard auscultatory technique.
RESULTS: The estimation of cSBP by the Omron device was higher than that of the SphygmoCor device (124.2±17.1 vs. 111.4±15.2 mmHg, P<0.001). Moreover, cSBP by Omron was significantly higher than peripheral blood pressure (124.2±17.1 vs. 119.4±15.6 mmHg, P<0.001), whereas cSBP by SphygmoCor was significantly lower than pSBP (111.4±15.2 vs. 119.4±15.6 mmHg, P<0.001). Similar results were observed in race-specific and sex-specific analyses.
CONCLUSION: These findings support the hypothesis that notable differences exist in the estimation of cSBP provided by the instruments utilized in this study. Further standardization studies are required to establish the most appropriate noninvasive estimation of cSBP before this parameter may be considered in the assessment, prediction, and prevention of cardio-metabolic risk and overt cardiovascular disease in clinical practice.

References

  1. Hypertension. 2004 Jun;43(6):1239-45 [PMID: 15123572]
  2. J Hypertens. 2001 Dec;19(12):2197-203 [PMID: 11725164]
  3. Br J Anaesth. 2004 May;92(5):651-7 [PMID: 15003985]
  4. J Cardiol. 2013 Aug;62(2):131-7 [PMID: 23731925]
  5. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2013 Sep-Oct;7(5):379-85 [PMID: 23850194]
  6. J Hypertens. 2013 Jan;31(1):86-93 [PMID: 23188416]
  7. Hypertens Res. 2007 Mar;30(3):219-28 [PMID: 17510503]
  8. Curr Pharm Des. 2009;15(3):245-53 [PMID: 19149616]
  9. Am J Hypertens. 2004 Nov;17(11 Pt 1):1059-67 [PMID: 15533735]
  10. J Hypertens. 2013 Mar;31(3):508-15; discussion 515 [PMID: 23235360]
  11. J Hypertens. 2011 Jun;29(6):1115-20 [PMID: 21505351]
  12. Hypertens Res. 2014 Jan;37(1):7-9 [PMID: 24048491]
  13. Hypertension. 2005 Jan;45(1):142-61 [PMID: 15611362]
  14. J Hum Hypertens. 2013 Jul;27(7):405-11 [PMID: 23535990]
  15. Circulation. 1997 Apr 1;95(7):1827-36 [PMID: 9107170]
  16. Hypertension. 2007 Jul;50(1):197-203 [PMID: 17485598]
  17. Am J Hypertens. 2011 Dec;24(12):1306-11 [PMID: 21976274]
  18. Hypertens Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1046-51 [PMID: 21753770]
  19. J Hypertens. 2014 Sep;32(9):1727-40 [PMID: 24937639]
  20. Blood Press Monit. 2004 Aug;9(4):179-85 [PMID: 15311144]
  21. Am J Hypertens. 2014 Feb;27(2):162-8 [PMID: 23999585]
  22. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2011 Apr 15;9:13 [PMID: 21496271]

Grants

  1. R01 AG041200/NIA NIH HHS
  2. R01 ES021724/NIEHS NIH HHS
  3. RF1 AG041200/NIA NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Blood Pressure
Blood Pressure Determination
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cSBPestimationbloodpressure4±15systolicnoninvasivepSBPOmronSphygmoCorvsP<0001studycentralobtainedtwodifferentmeasuredperipheralBogalusaHeartStudyusingdevicehigher1242±171111significantly1196 mmHgOBJECTIVES:soughtcomparedevicesadditioncomparisonsbiracialBlack/Whitecommunity-basedcohortPARTICIPANTSANDMETHODS:Estimationsapplanationtonometry586participantsmeanage:435years69%White54%womencommonlyusedinstruments:HEM-9000AICPVstandardauscultatorytechniqueRESULTS:2 mmHgMoreoverwhereaslower2Similarresultsobservedrace-specificsex-specificanalysesCONCLUSION:findingssupporthypothesisnotabledifferencesexistprovidedinstrumentsutilizedstandardizationstudiesrequiredestablishappropriateparametermayconsideredassessmentpredictionpreventioncardio-metabolicriskovertcardiovasculardiseaseclinicalpracticeMethodologicalevaluationnontreatedpatients:

Similar Articles

Cited By