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

In silico data-based comparison of the accuracy and error source of various methods for noninvasively estimating central aortic blood pressure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The higher clinical significance of central aortic blood pressure (CABP) compared to peripheral blood pressures has been extensively demonstrated. Accordingly, many methods for noninvasively estimating CABP have been proposed. However, there still lacks a systematic comparison of existing methods, especially in terms of how they differ in the ability to tolerate individual differences or measurement errors. The present study was designed to address this gap.

METHODS

A large-scale 'virtual subject' dataset (n = 600) was created using a computational model of the cardiovascular system, and applied to examine several classical CABP estimation methods, including the direct method, generalized transfer function (GTF) method, n-point moving average (NPMA) method, second systolic pressure of periphery (SBP2) method, physical model-based wave analysis (MBWA) method, and suprasystolic cuff-based waveform reconstruction (SCWR) method. The errors of CABP estimation were analyzed and compared among methods with respect to the magnitude/distribution, correlations with physiological/hemodynamic factors, and sensitivities to noninvasive measurement errors.

RESULTS

The errors of CABP estimation exhibited evident inter-method differences in terms of the mean and standard deviation (SD). Relatively, the estimation errors of the methods adopting pre-trained algorithms (i.e., the GTF and SCWR methods) were overall smaller and less sensitive to variations in physiological/hemodynamic conditions and random errors in noninvasive measurement of brachial arterial blood pressure (used for calibrating peripheral pulse wave). The performances of all the methods worsened following the introduction of random errors to peripheral pulse wave (used for deriving CABP), as characterized by the enlarged SD and/or increased mean of the estimation errors. Notably, the GTF and SCWR methods did not exhibit a better capability of tolerating pulse wave errors in comparison with other methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Classical noninvasive methods for estimating CABP were found to differ considerably in both the accuracy and error source, which provided theoretical evidence for understanding the specific advantages and disadvantages of each method. Knowledge about the method-specific error source and sensitivities of errors to different physiological/hemodynamic factors may contribute as theoretical references for interpreting clinical observations and exploring factors underlying large estimation errors, or provide guidance for optimizing existing methods or developing new methods.

Impact of a cuff-based device calibration method on the agreement between invasive and noninvasive aortic and brachial pressure

INTRODUCTION

Brachial cuff-based methods are increasingly used to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP). However, there are several unresolved issues.

AIMS

to determine to what extent the scheme used to calibrate brachial records (1) can affect noninvasive obtained aoSBP levels, and consequently, the level of agreement with the aoSBP recorded invasively, and (2) how different ways of calibrating ultimately impact the relationship between aoSBP and cardiac properties.

METHODS

brachial and aortic blood pressure (BP) was simultaneously obtained by invasive (catheterisation) and noninvasive (brachial oscillometric-device) methods (89 subjects). aoSBP was noninvasive obtained using three calibration schemes: 'SD': diastolic and systolic brachial BP, 'C': diastolic and calculated brachial mean BP (bMBP), 'Osc': diastolic and oscillometry-derived bMBP. Agreement between invasive and noninvasive aoSBP, and associations between BP and echocardiographic-derived parameters were analysed.

CONCLUSIONS

'C' and 'SD' schemes generated aoSBP levels lower than those recorded invasively (mean errors: 6.9 and 10.1 mmHg); the opposite was found when considering 'Osc'(mean error: -11.4 mmHg). As individuals had higher invasive aoSBP, the three calibration schemes increasingly underestimated aoSBP levels; and viceversa. The 'range' of invasive aoSBP in which the calibration schemes reach the lowest error level (-5-5 mmHg) is different: 'C': 103-131 mmHg; 'Osc': 159-201 mmHg; 'SD':101-124 mmHg. The calibration methods allowed reaching levels of association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics, somewhat lower, but very similar to those obtained when considering invasive aoSBP. There is no evidence of a clear superiority of one calibration method over another when considering the association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics.

Effects of accumulated exercise on the stiffness and hemodynamics of the common carotid artery

Purpose: This research aims to study and compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous exercise and accumulated exercise with different number of bouts on common carotid arterial stiffness and hemodynamic variables. Methods: Thirty healthy male adults were recruited to complete four trials in a randomized crossover design: no-exercise (CON); continuous exercise (CE, 30-min cycling); accumulated exercise including two or three bouts with 10-min rest intervals (AE15, 2 × 15-min cycling; AE10, 3 × 10-min cycling). The intensity in all the exercise trials was set at 45%-55% heart rate reserve. Blood pressure, right common carotid artery center-line velocity, and arterial inner diameter waveforms were measured at baseline and immediately after exercise (0 min), 10 min, and 20 min. Results: 1) The arterial stiffness index and pressure-strain elastic modulus of the CE and AE15 groups increased significantly at 0 min, arterial diameters decreased in AE15 and AE10, and all indicators recovered at 10 min. 2) The mean blood flow rate and carotid artery center-line velocity increased in all trials at 0 min, and only the mean blood flow rate of AE10 did not recover at 10 min. 3) At 0 min, the blood pressure in all trials was found to be increased, and the wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index of AE10 were different from those in CE and AE15. At 20 min, the blood pressure of AE10 significantly decreased, and the dynamic resistance, pulsatility index, and peripheral resistance of CE partially recovered. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the acute effects of continuous exercise and accumulated exercise on the arterial stiffness and diameter of the carotid artery. Compared with continuous exercise, accumulated exercise with an increased number of bouts is more effective in increasing cerebral blood supply and blood pressure regulation, and its oscillatory shear index recovers faster. However, the improvement of blood flow resistance in continuous exercise was better than that in accumulated exercise.

Central-to-peripheral blood pressure amplification: role of the recording site, technology, analysis approach, and calibration scheme in invasive and non-invasive data agreement

Background

Systolic blood pressure amplification (SBPA) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) can independently predict cardiovascular damage and mortality. A wide range of methods are used for the non-invasive estimation of SBPA and PPA. The most accurate non-invasive method for obtaining SBPA and/or PPA remains unknown.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the agreement between the SBPA and PPA values that are invasively and non-invasively obtained using different (1) measurement sites (radial, brachial, carotid), (2) measuring techniques (tonometry, oscillometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), (3) pulse waveform analysis approaches, and (4) calibration methods [systo-diastolic vs. approaches using brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (BP)], with the latter calculated using different equations or measured by oscillometry.

Methods

Invasive aortic and brachial pressure (catheterism) and non-invasive aortic and peripheral (brachial, radial) BP were simultaneously obtained from 34 subjects using different methodologies, analysis methods, measuring sites, and calibration methods. SBPA and PPA were quantified. Concordance correlation and the Bland-Altman analysis were performed.

Results

(1) In general, SBPA and PPA levels obtained with non-invasive approaches were not associated with those recorded invasively. (2) The different non-invasive approaches led to (extremely) dissimilar results. In general, non-invasive measurements underestimated SBPA and PPA; the higher the invasive SBPA (or PPA), the greater the underestimation. (3) None of the calibration schemes, which considered non-invasive brachial BP to estimate SBPA or PPA, were better than the others. (4) SBPA and PPA levels obtained from radial artery waveform analysis (tonometry) (5) and common carotid artery ultrasound recordings and brachial artery waveform analysis, respectively, minimized the mean errors.

Conclusions

Overall, the findings showed that (i) SBPA and PPA indices are not "synonymous" and (ii) non-invasive approaches would fail to accurately determine invasive SBPA or PPA levels, regardless of the recording site, analysis, and calibration methods. Non-invasive measurements generally underestimated SBPA and PPA, and the higher the invasive SBPA or PPA, the higher the underestimation. There was not a calibration scheme better than the others. Consequently, our study emphasizes the strong need to be critical of measurement techniques, to have methodological transparency, and to have expert consensus for non-invasive assessment of SBPA and PPA.

Direct estimation of central aortic pressure from measured or quantified mean and diastolic brachial blood pressure: agreement with invasive records

Background

Recently it has been proposed a new approach to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP) without the need for specific devices, operator-dependent techniques and/or complex wave propagation models/algorithms. The approach proposes aoSBP can be quantified from brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (bDBP, bMBP) as: aoSBP = bMBP2/bDBP. It remains to be assessed to what extent the method and/or equation used to obtain the bMBP levels considered in aoSBP calculation may affect the estimated aoSBP, and consequently the agreement with aoSBP invasively recorded.

Methods

Brachial and aortic pressure were simultaneously obtained invasively (catheterization) and non-invasively (brachial oscillometry) in 89 subjects. aoSBP was quantified in seven different ways, using measured (oscillometry-derived) and calculated (six equations) mean blood pressure (MBP) levels. The agreement between invasive and estimated aoSBP was analyzed (Concordance correlation coefficient; Bland-Altman Test).

Conclusions

The ability of the equation "aoSBP = MBP2/DBP" to (accurately) estimate (error <5 mmHg) invasive aoSBP depends on the method and equation considered to determine bMBP, and on the aoSBP levels (proportional error). Oscillometric bMBP and/or approaches that consider adjustments for heart rate or a form factor ∼40% (instead of the usual 33%) would be the best way to obtain the bMBP levels to be used to calculate aoSBP.

Non-invasive central aortic pressure measurement: what limits its application in clinical practice?

The following article highlights the need for methodological transparency and consensus for an accurate and non-invasive assessment of central aortic blood pressure (aoBP), which would contribute to increasing its validity and value in both clinical and physiological research settings. The recording method and site, the mathematical model used to quantify aoBP, and mainly the method applied to calibrate pulse waveforms are essential when estimating aoBP and should be considered when analyzing and/or comparing data from different works, populations and/or obtained with different approaches. Up to now, many questions remain concerning the incremental predictive ability of aoBP over peripheral blood pressure and the possible role of aoBP-guided therapy in everyday practice. In this article, we focus on "putting it on the table" and discussing the main aspects analyzed in the literature as potential determinants of the lack of consensus on the non-invasive measurement of aoBP.

Photoplethysmography Driven Hypertension Identification: A Pilot Study

To prevent and diagnose hypertension early, there has been a growing demand to identify its states that align with patients. This pilot study aims to research how a non-invasive method using photoplethysmographic (PPG) signals works together with deep learning algorithms. A portable PPG acquisition device (Max30101 photonic sensor) was utilized to (1) capture PPG signals and (2) wirelessly transmit data sets. In contrast to traditional feature engineering machine learning classification schemes, this study preprocessed raw data and applied a deep learning algorithm (LSTM-Attention) directly to extract deeper correlations between these raw datasets. The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model underlying a gate mechanism and memory unit enables it to handle long sequence data more effectively, avoiding gradient disappearance and possessing the ability to solve long-term dependencies. To enhance the correlation between distant sampling points, an attention mechanism was introduced to capture more data change features than a separate LSTM model. A protocol with 15 healthy volunteers and 15 hypertension patients was implemented to obtain these datasets. The processed result demonstrates that the proposed model could present satisfactory performance (accuracy: 0.991; precision: 0.989; recall: 0.993; F1-score: 0.991). The model we proposed also demonstrated superior performance compared to related studies. The outcome indicates the proposed method could effectively diagnose and identify hypertension; thus, a paradigm to cost-effectively screen hypertension could rapidly be established using wearable smart devices.