Thumb-rule for the proper assessment of mean blood pressure at the brachial artery level: what should be changed?

Assessment of systolic aortic pressure and its association to all cause mortality critically depends on waveform calibration

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is the prospective investigation of the association of brachial SBP (bSBP) and aortic SBP (aSBP) to all-cause mortality, with special emphasis on different calibration methods for central pressure estimates, in particular, brachial systolic and diastolic, as well as brachial mean and diastolic pressures.

METHOD

One hundred and fifty-nine patients were enrolled in a longitudinal, prospective study of arterial stiffness and cardiovascular risk in a chronic kidney disease stages 2-4 cohort. Office measurements of bSBP and aSBP were assessed by a validated oscillometric device. Prognostic factors of survival were identified by use of Cox proportional-hazards regression models.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up duration of 42 months (range 30-50 months), 13 patients died. In univariate Cox analysis, bSBP and aSBP calibrated using bSBP and bDBP did not significantly predict mortality, only aSBP assessed using measured mean and diastolic pressure calibration was significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio 1.027, P = 0.008). This remained significant in multivariate analysis after adjustment for age, sex, and anthropometric measures. More important, adding bSBP to the multivariate model (hazard ratio 0.91, P = 0.003) lead to a significantly increased prognostic power of aortic systolic pressure (hazard ratio 1.097, P < 0.001) and indicated that differences between bSBP and aSBP are of potential interest.

CONCLUSION

Within our cohort, only aSBP assessed with measured mean and diastolic pressure independently predicted mortality and provided additional prognostic value on top of bSBP readings. Therefore, the method of calibration plays an important role for predictive power of aSBP.

The impact of central blood pressure levels on the relationship between oscillometric and central blood pressure measurements: a multicenter invasive study

The aim of this study was to investigate impact of central blood pressure (BP) levels and sex on the difference between central and upper arm oscillometric BP values. Oscillometric arterial BP measurements of 675 patients were simultaneously compared with values measured from the ascending aorta. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to systolic BP levels. The upper arm oscillometric device overestimated systolic BP (SBP) at low and medium BP levels but it underestimated SBP at high BP level. As for the effect of sex on differences in central and oscillometric BP, SBP was overestimated to a lesser degree in women than in men at low BP levels, but it was more highly underestimated in women than in men at high BP levels. The difference between oscillometric upper arm BP and aortic BP was directly affected by the patient's central BP level. In addition, the difference between central and oscillometric BP was also affected by sex factor.

Noninvasive assessment of central and peripheral arterial pressure (waveforms): implications of calibration methods

OBJECTIVES

Noninvasive estimation of central blood pressure (BP) from radial artery pressure waveforms is increasingly applied. We investigated the impact of radial artery waveform calibration on central BP assessment and calculated pressure amplification, with focus on the one-third rule used to estimate mean arterial BP (MAP).

METHODS

Pressure waveforms were noninvasively measured at the radial and carotid arteries in 1873 individuals (age 45.8+/-6.1 years). Radial and carotid artery waveforms were calibrated using brachial artery DBP and SBP, MAP estimated with the one-third rule and MAP estimated as brachial DBP along with 40% of brachial artery pulse pressure.

RESULTS

Central SBP obtained via a transfer function was 123.5 +/- 15.7, 117.8 +/- 14.2 and 126.0 +/- 15.4 mmHg (mean +/- SD) following above-mentioned three calibration schemes, respectively. Using the same calibration schemes, carotid artery SBP was 131.4 +/- 15.2, 118.4 +/- 14.4 and 126.8 +/- 15.7 mmHg, respectively. Central-to-brachial amplification was 13.0 +/- 3.6 mmHg using second method as compared with 4.6 +/- 3.8 mmHg with third method. Brachial-to-radial amplification was actually negative (-6.3 +/- 4.5 mmHg) using second method, whereas 3.4 +/- 5.5 mmHg was found with third method.

CONCLUSION

Both carotid artery SBP and central SBP obtained via a transfer function are highly sensitive to the calibration of the respective carotid artery and radial artery pressure waveforms. Our data suggest that the one-third rule to calculate MAP from brachial cuff BP should be avoided, especially when used to calibrate radial artery pressure waveforms for subsequent application of a pressure transfer function. Until more precise estimation methods become available, it is advisable to use 40% of brachial pulse pressure instead of 33% to assess MAP.