Validation assessment of a cuff-based central blood pressure device according to Artery Society recommendations.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE

Blood Pressure Monitoring Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-06 DOI:10.1097/MBP.0000000000000754

Tan V Bui, Dean S Picone, Wojciech P Kosmala, Michał J Kosowski, Jowita Zachwyc, Giacomo Pucci, Alessio Arrivi, Rosa Curcio, Martin G Schultz, J Andrew Black, Nathan Dwyer, Philip Roberts-Thomson, Sarang Paleri, Heath Adams, James E Sharman

{"title":"Validation assessment of a cuff-based central blood pressure device according to Artery Society recommendations.","authors":"Tan V Bui, Dean S Picone, Wojciech P Kosmala, Michał J Kosowski, Jowita Zachwyc, Giacomo Pucci, Alessio Arrivi, Rosa Curcio, Martin G Schultz, J Andrew Black, Nathan Dwyer, Philip Roberts-Thomson, Sarang Paleri, Heath Adams, James E Sharman","doi":"10.1097/MBP.0000000000000754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Uscom BP+ is a cuff-based blood pressure (BP) device designed to noninvasively estimate central BP as distinct from conventional brachial BP. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the Uscom BP+ device compared with invasively measured BP.Methods: Automated noninvasive cuff central BP (using the Uscom BP+ device) and invasive central aortic BP were recorded simultaneously in 191 participants (65% male, aged 66 ± 11 years) receiving coronary angiography at three independent research sites in Australia, Poland, and Italy. Validation procedures were undertaken according to the Artery Society recommendations and with a minimally acceptable error (mean ± SD) of ≤5 ± ≤8 mmHg as pass criteria.Results: Using the device default calibration technique [brachial cuff systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)], cuff central SBP underestimated invasive central SBP [mean (SD) difference: -10.2 (11.2) mmHg] and cuff central DBP overestimated invasive central DBP [mean (SD) difference: 9.8 (8.5) mmHg]. When calibrating by brachial cuff mean arterial pressure and DBP, SBP accuracy was improved, but variability remained high [mean (SD) difference: -6.3 (14.4) mmHg, P = 0.004 vs. default calibration, whereas DBP accuracy and variability remained similar [mean (SD) difference: 10.9 (8.5) mmHg, P = 0.19 vs. default calibration].Conclusion: The Uscom BP+ cuff device does not pass the Artery Society accuracy criteria compared with invasively measured central BP.","PeriodicalId":8950,"journal":{"name":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","volume":" ","pages":"181-186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000754","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Uscom BP+ is a cuff-based blood pressure (BP) device designed to noninvasively estimate central BP as distinct from conventional brachial BP. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the Uscom BP+ device compared with invasively measured BP.

Methods: Automated noninvasive cuff central BP (using the Uscom BP+ device) and invasive central aortic BP were recorded simultaneously in 191 participants (65% male, aged 66 ± 11 years) receiving coronary angiography at three independent research sites in Australia, Poland, and Italy. Validation procedures were undertaken according to the Artery Society recommendations and with a minimally acceptable error (mean ± SD) of ≤5 ± ≤8 mmHg as pass criteria.

Results: Using the device default calibration technique [brachial cuff systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)], cuff central SBP underestimated invasive central SBP [mean (SD) difference: -10.2 (11.2) mmHg] and cuff central DBP overestimated invasive central DBP [mean (SD) difference: 9.8 (8.5) mmHg]. When calibrating by brachial cuff mean arterial pressure and DBP, SBP accuracy was improved, but variability remained high [mean (SD) difference: -6.3 (14.4) mmHg, P = 0.004 vs. default calibration, whereas DBP accuracy and variability remained similar [mean (SD) difference: 10.9 (8.5) mmHg, P = 0.19 vs. default calibration].

Conclusion: The Uscom BP+ cuff device does not pass the Artery Society accuracy criteria compared with invasively measured central BP.

查看原文本刊更多论文

根据动脉协会的建议，对基于袖带的中心血压装置进行验证评估。

目的：Uscom BP+是一种基于袖带的血压（BP）装置，旨在无创地估计中央血压，区别于传统的肱血压。本研究旨在评估Uscom BP+装置与有创测量BP的准确性。方法：在澳大利亚、波兰和意大利三个独立的研究地点，同时记录191名接受冠状动脉造影的参与者（65%男性，66±11岁）的自动无创袖带中心血压（使用Uscom BP+装置）和有创中央主动脉血压。验证程序根据动脉协会的建议进行，并以最小可接受误差（平均±SD）≤5±≤8 mmHg作为通过标准。结果：使用设备默认校准技术[肱袖带收缩压（SBP）和舒张压（DBP）]，袖带中央收缩压低估了侵袭性中央收缩压[平均（SD）差：-10.2 (11.2)mmHg]，袖带中央舒张压高估了侵袭性中央舒张压[平均（SD）差：9.8 (8.5)mmHg]。当通过肱袖带平均动脉压和舒张压校准时，收缩压准确性得到改善，但变异性仍然很高[平均（SD）差异：-6.3 (14.4)mmHg, P = 0.004与默认校准相比，而舒张压准确性和变异性保持相似[平均（SD）差异：10.9 (8.5)mmHg, P = 0.19与默认校准相比]。结论：与有创测量中心血压相比，Uscom血压+袖带装置不符合动脉协会的准确性标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Blood Pressure Monitoring 医学-外周血管病

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

7.70%

发文量

110

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Blood Pressure Monitoring is devoted to original research in blood pressure measurement and blood pressure variability. It includes device technology, analytical methodology of blood pressure over time and its variability, clinical trials - including, but not limited to, pharmacology - involving blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure reactivity, patient evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness research. This innovative journal contains papers dealing with all aspects of manual, automated, and ambulatory monitoring. Basic and clinical science papers are considered although the emphasis is on clinical medicine. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.