Identifying Isolated Systolic Hypertension From Upper-Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Compared With Invasive Measurements

Cardiovascular and health cost impacts of cuff blood pressure underestimation and overestimation of invasive aortic systolic blood pressure

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension management is directed by cuff blood pressure (BP), but this may be inaccurate, potentially influencing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and health costs. This study aimed to determine the impact on CVD events and related costs of the differences between cuff and invasive SBP.

METHODS

Microsimulations based on Markov modelling over one year were used to determine the differences in the number of CVD events (myocardial infarction or coronary death, stroke, atrial fibrillation or heart failure) predicted by Framingham risk and total CVD health costs based on cuff SBP compared with invasive (aortic) SBP. Modelling was based on international consortium data from 1678 participants undergoing cardiac catheterization and 30 separate studies. Cuff underestimation and overestimation were defined as cuff SBP less than invasive SBP and cuff SBP greater than invasive SBP, respectively.

RESULTS

The proportion of people with cuff SBP underestimation versus overestimation progressively increased as SBP increased. This reached a maximum ratio of 16 : 1 in people with hypertension grades II and III. Both the number of CVD events missed (predominantly stroke, coronary death and myocardial infarction) and associated health costs increased stepwise across levels of SBP control, as cuff SBP underestimation increased. The maximum number of CVD events potentially missed (11.8/1000 patients) and highest costs ($241 300 USD/1000 patients) were seen in people with hypertension grades II and III and with at least 15 mmHg of cuff SBP underestimation.

CONCLUSION

Cuff SBP underestimation can result in potentially preventable CVD events being missed and major increases in health costs. These issues could be remedied with improved cuff SBP accuracy.

Sex Differences in Blood Pressure and Potential Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Management

BACKGROUND

Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is critical for optimal cardiovascular risk management. Age-related trajectories for cuff-measured BP accelerate faster in women compared with men, but whether cuff BP represents the intraarterial (invasive) aortic BP is unknown. This study aimed to determine the sex differences between cuff BP, invasive aortic BP, and the difference between the 2 measurements.

METHODS

Upper-arm cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured during coronary angiography in 1615 subjects from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium Database. This analysis comprised 22 different cuff BP devices from 28 studies.

RESULTS

Subjects were 64±11 years (range 40-89) and 32% women. For the same cuff systolic BP (SBP), invasive aortic SBP was 4.4 mm Hg higher in women compared with men. Cuff and invasive aortic SBP were higher in women compared with men, but the sex difference was more pronounced from invasive aortic SBP, was the lowest in younger ages, and the highest in older ages. Cuff diastolic blood pressure overestimated invasive diastolic blood pressure in both sexes. For cuff and invasive diastolic blood pressure separately, there were sex*age interactions in which diastolic blood pressure was higher in younger men and lower in older men, compared with women. Cuff pulse pressure underestimated invasive aortic pulse pressure in excess of 10 mm Hg for both sexes in older age.

CONCLUSIONS

For the same cuff SBP, invasive aortic SBP was higher in women compared with men. How this translates to cardiovascular risk prediction needs to be determined, but women may be at higher BP-related risk than estimated by cuff measurements.

A fluid-structure interaction model accounting arterial vessels as a key part of the blood-flow engine for the analysis of cardiovascular diseases

According to the classical Windkessel model, the heart is the only power source for blood flow, while the arterial system is assumed to be an elastic chamber that acts as a channel and buffer for blood circulation. In this paper we show that in addition to the power provided by the heart for blood circulation, strain energy stored in deformed arterial vessels in vivo can be transformed into mechanical work to propel blood flow. A quantitative relationship between the strain energy increment and functional (systolic, diastolic, mean and pulse blood pressure) and structural (stiffness, diameter and wall thickness) parameters of the aorta is described. In addition, details of blood flow across the aorta remain unclear due to changes in functional and other physiological parameters. Based on the arterial strain energy and fluid-structure interaction theory, the relationship between physiological parameters and blood supply to organs was studied, and a corresponding mathematical model was developed. The findings provided a new understanding about blood-flow circulation, that is, cardiac output allows blood to enter the aorta at an initial rate, and then strain energy stored in the elastic arteries pushes blood toward distal organs and tissues. Organ blood supply is a key factor in cardio-cerebrovascular diseases (CCVD), which are caused by changes in blood supply in combination with multiple physiological parameters. Also, some physiological parameters are affected by changes in blood supply, and vice versa. The model can explain the pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic diseases such as CCVD and hypertension among others, and the results are in good agreement with epidemiological studies of CCVD.

Invasive Blood Pressure Measurement and In-hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Hypertension

Background: Invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurement is common in the intensive care unit, although its association with in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with hypertension is poorly understood.

Methods and Results: A total of 11,732 critically ill patients with hypertension from the eICU-Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether they received IBP. The primary outcome in this study was in-hospital mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighing (IPTW) models were used to balance the confounding covariates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between IBP measurement and hospital mortality. The IBP group had a higher in-hospital mortality rate than the no IBP group in the primary cohort [238 (8.7%) vs. 581 (6.5%), p < 0.001]. In the PSM cohort, the IBP group had a lower in-hospital mortality rate than the no IBP group [187 (8.0%) vs. 241 (10.3%), p = 0.006]. IBP measurement was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in the PSM cohort (odds ratio, 0.73, 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.92) and in the IPTW cohort (odds ratio, 0.81, 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.99). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results in the subgroups with high body mass index and no sepsis.

Conclusions: In conclusion, IBP measurement was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with hypertension, highlighting the importance of IBP measurement in the intensive care unit.