Jonathan P. Glenning, Kieran Sandhu, Hilary A. Harrington, Lucas Eastaugh, Geoffrey K. Lane, Joseph J. Smolich, Jonathan P. Mynard
{"title":"Accuracy of the WatchBP Office Central as a Type 2 device for non-invasive estimation of central aortic blood pressure in children and adolescents","authors":"Jonathan P. Glenning, Kieran Sandhu, Hilary A. Harrington, Lucas Eastaugh, Geoffrey K. Lane, Joseph J. Smolich, Jonathan P. Mynard","doi":"10.1038/s41371-024-00956-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>High blood pressure (BP) in childhood is a recognised precursor of elevated cardiovascular risk in adulthood. Brachial BP is normally used for clinical decision making, but central BP may be a better marker of pressure load on the heart. There is a paucity of validated non-invasive, automated devices for estimating central BP in children and adolescents. In this study, we compared the WatchBP Office Central (a Type 2 central pressure estimation device) against a high-fidelity micromanometer in the ascending aorta of anaesthetised patients undergoing clinically-indicated catheterisation (<i>n</i> = 15, age 4–16 years). As a secondary aim, central systolic BP (cSBP) was also compared to two non-invasive estimation methods in 34 awake patients undergoing routine cardiac MRI (age 10–18 years). WatchBP substantially overestimated cSBP compared to the intra-arterial gold-standard reference (26.1 ± 7.4 mmHg), and recruitment was terminated at <i>n</i> = 11 (included in the analysis) due to high statistical certainty that the device would not pass the validation criteria of 5±8 mmHg. WatchBP cSBP was also substantially higher than values obtained from a phase contrast MRI method (11.8 ± 7.9 mmHg) and the SphygmoCor XCEL (13.5 ± 8.9 mmHg) in the awake patient group, which translate to 21–23 mmHg on average after accounting for known/estimated biases in these non-invasive comparators. Compared with invasive central diastolic and systolic BPs, the brachial measures from WatchBP yielded errors of 0.1 ± 5.6 and 12.5 ± 6.0 mmHg respectively. We conclude that the WatchBP substantially overestimates cSBP in children and adolescents. These findings reinforce the need for central BP-measuring devices to be further developed and validated in this population.</p><figure></figure>","PeriodicalId":16070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Hypertension","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-024-00956-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
High blood pressure (BP) in childhood is a recognised precursor of elevated cardiovascular risk in adulthood. Brachial BP is normally used for clinical decision making, but central BP may be a better marker of pressure load on the heart. There is a paucity of validated non-invasive, automated devices for estimating central BP in children and adolescents. In this study, we compared the WatchBP Office Central (a Type 2 central pressure estimation device) against a high-fidelity micromanometer in the ascending aorta of anaesthetised patients undergoing clinically-indicated catheterisation (n = 15, age 4–16 years). As a secondary aim, central systolic BP (cSBP) was also compared to two non-invasive estimation methods in 34 awake patients undergoing routine cardiac MRI (age 10–18 years). WatchBP substantially overestimated cSBP compared to the intra-arterial gold-standard reference (26.1 ± 7.4 mmHg), and recruitment was terminated at n = 11 (included in the analysis) due to high statistical certainty that the device would not pass the validation criteria of 5±8 mmHg. WatchBP cSBP was also substantially higher than values obtained from a phase contrast MRI method (11.8 ± 7.9 mmHg) and the SphygmoCor XCEL (13.5 ± 8.9 mmHg) in the awake patient group, which translate to 21–23 mmHg on average after accounting for known/estimated biases in these non-invasive comparators. Compared with invasive central diastolic and systolic BPs, the brachial measures from WatchBP yielded errors of 0.1 ± 5.6 and 12.5 ± 6.0 mmHg respectively. We conclude that the WatchBP substantially overestimates cSBP in children and adolescents. These findings reinforce the need for central BP-measuring devices to be further developed and validated in this population.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Human Hypertension is published monthly and is of interest to health care professionals who deal with hypertension (specialists, internists, primary care physicians) and public health workers. We believe that our patients benefit from robust scientific data that are based on well conducted clinical trials. We also believe that basic sciences are the foundations on which we build our knowledge of clinical conditions and their management. Towards this end, although we are primarily a clinical based journal, we also welcome suitable basic sciences studies that promote our understanding of human hypertension.
The journal aims to perform the dual role of increasing knowledge in the field of high blood pressure as well as improving the standard of care of patients. The editors will consider for publication all suitable papers dealing directly or indirectly with clinical aspects of hypertension, including but not limited to epidemiology, pathophysiology, therapeutics and basic sciences involving human subjects or tissues. We also consider papers from all specialties such as ophthalmology, cardiology, nephrology, obstetrics and stroke medicine that deal with the various aspects of hypertension and its complications.