Comparison of Non-Invasive Estimation of Central Aortic Blood Pressure and Biomarkers of Vascular Health Measured by Two Devices Using Brachial Cuff Waveforms.

IF 3.4 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Pulse Pub Date : 2025-10-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000548849
Xinyue Zhou, Xibao Shi, Yueliang Hu, Biwen Tang, Yakun Li, Mark Butlin, Alberto P Avolio, Junli Zuo
{"title":"Comparison of Non-Invasive Estimation of Central Aortic Blood Pressure and Biomarkers of Vascular Health Measured by Two Devices Using Brachial Cuff Waveforms.","authors":"Xinyue Zhou, Xibao Shi, Yueliang Hu, Biwen Tang, Yakun Li, Mark Butlin, Alberto P Avolio, Junli Zuo","doi":"10.1159/000548849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The pulse wave analysis technology in the specialist SphygmoCor XCEL device has now been implemented in the CONNEQT Pulse device, which is a conventional sphygmomanometer suitable for home blood pressure (BP) monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the correlation and consistency of measurements between the two devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted in participants admitted to the Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Brachial BP (bBP), central BP (cBP), augmentation pressure (AP), augmentation index (AIx), and subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) were measured with the CONNEQT Pulse and the SphygmoCor XCEL devices, both using a calibrated cuff-based brachial waveform.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 367 eligible subjects, aged 23-92 (57.6 ± 13.0) years, of whom 254 (69.2%) were male, was enrolled in this study. Paired <i>t</i> tests showed relatively low bias and elevated standard deviation: cSBP mm Hg ([121.7 ± 17.2] vs. [117.5 ± 14.5], <i>p</i> < 0.001), cDBP ([80.6 ± 11.0] vs. [78.3 ± 11.4], <i>p</i> < 0.001), cPP ([41.0 ± 12.7] vs. [39.2 ± 9.5], <i>p</i> < 0.001), AP mm Hg ([11.5 ± 6.2] vs. [12.8 ± 6.6], <i>p</i> < 0.001), AI ([26.4 ± 9.0]% vs. [31.9 ± 14.0]%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and SEVR ([135.6 ± 25.5]% vs. [137.8 ± 26.4]%, <i>p</i> = 0.02). cDBP (<i>r</i> = 0.812) measured by both devices was strongly correlated, cSBP (<i>r</i> = 0.762), cPP (<i>r</i> = 0.702) and SEVR (<i>r</i> = 0.778) were strongly correlated, whereas AP (<i>r</i> = 0.587) and AIx (<i>r</i> = 0.522) were moderately correlated (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). For intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for both devices, cDBP (ICC = 0.794) and SEVR (ICC = 0.776) showed good reproducibility, while cSBP (ICC = 0.727), cPP (ICC = 0.666), AIx (ICC = 0.428), and AP (ICC = 0.575) showed good to modest reproducibility. The differences between cSBP, cDBP, cPP, AP, AIx, and SEVR measured by the two devices were 4.2 ± 11.2 mm Hg, 2.3 ± 6.9 mm Hg, -1.8 ± 9.0 mm Hg, -1.3 ± 5.8 mm Hg, -5.6 ± 12.0%, and 2.1 ± 17.3%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both devices show strong cBP-bBP correlations and low bias, suggesting that the new CONNEQT Pulse provides similar measurements of cBP to the original SphygmoCor XCEL. Although there is greater variability in waveform parameters, the magnitude of differences is within acceptable limits for meaningful use in conventional home BP monitoring. The relatively elevated variability in measurement precision (standard deviation), most likely due to sequential measurements with both devices in the same arm, needs to be further evaluated using simultaneous measurements in both arms.</p>","PeriodicalId":29774,"journal":{"name":"Pulse","volume":"13 1","pages":"157-165"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12618021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The pulse wave analysis technology in the specialist SphygmoCor XCEL device has now been implemented in the CONNEQT Pulse device, which is a conventional sphygmomanometer suitable for home blood pressure (BP) monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the correlation and consistency of measurements between the two devices.

Methods: The study was conducted in participants admitted to the Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Brachial BP (bBP), central BP (cBP), augmentation pressure (AP), augmentation index (AIx), and subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) were measured with the CONNEQT Pulse and the SphygmoCor XCEL devices, both using a calibrated cuff-based brachial waveform.

Results: A total of 367 eligible subjects, aged 23-92 (57.6 ± 13.0) years, of whom 254 (69.2%) were male, was enrolled in this study. Paired t tests showed relatively low bias and elevated standard deviation: cSBP mm Hg ([121.7 ± 17.2] vs. [117.5 ± 14.5], p < 0.001), cDBP ([80.6 ± 11.0] vs. [78.3 ± 11.4], p < 0.001), cPP ([41.0 ± 12.7] vs. [39.2 ± 9.5], p < 0.001), AP mm Hg ([11.5 ± 6.2] vs. [12.8 ± 6.6], p < 0.001), AI ([26.4 ± 9.0]% vs. [31.9 ± 14.0]%, p < 0.01), and SEVR ([135.6 ± 25.5]% vs. [137.8 ± 26.4]%, p = 0.02). cDBP (r = 0.812) measured by both devices was strongly correlated, cSBP (r = 0.762), cPP (r = 0.702) and SEVR (r = 0.778) were strongly correlated, whereas AP (r = 0.587) and AIx (r = 0.522) were moderately correlated (all p < 0.001). For intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for both devices, cDBP (ICC = 0.794) and SEVR (ICC = 0.776) showed good reproducibility, while cSBP (ICC = 0.727), cPP (ICC = 0.666), AIx (ICC = 0.428), and AP (ICC = 0.575) showed good to modest reproducibility. The differences between cSBP, cDBP, cPP, AP, AIx, and SEVR measured by the two devices were 4.2 ± 11.2 mm Hg, 2.3 ± 6.9 mm Hg, -1.8 ± 9.0 mm Hg, -1.3 ± 5.8 mm Hg, -5.6 ± 12.0%, and 2.1 ± 17.3%, respectively.

Conclusion: Both devices show strong cBP-bBP correlations and low bias, suggesting that the new CONNEQT Pulse provides similar measurements of cBP to the original SphygmoCor XCEL. Although there is greater variability in waveform parameters, the magnitude of differences is within acceptable limits for meaningful use in conventional home BP monitoring. The relatively elevated variability in measurement precision (standard deviation), most likely due to sequential measurements with both devices in the same arm, needs to be further evaluated using simultaneous measurements in both arms.

两种仪器无创测量肱袖带波形中央主动脉血压和血管健康生物标志物的比较
介绍:专业的sphygmoor XCEL设备中的脉搏波分析技术现已应用于CONNEQT pulse设备,这是一种适用于家庭血压(BP)监测的传统血压计。本研究的目的是比较两种设备测量结果的相关性和一致性。方法:研究对象为上海交通大学医学院瑞金医院老年科住院患者。使用CONNEQT Pulse和sphygmoor XCEL设备测量肱BP (bBP)、中央BP (cBP)、增强压(AP)、增强指数(AIx)和心内膜下生存比(SEVR),两者都使用校准的袖带肱波形。结果:共有367名符合条件的受试者入组,年龄23-92(57.6±13.0)岁,其中男性254名(69.2%)。配对t测试显示相对较低的偏差和标准差升高:cSBP毫米汞柱((121.7±17.2)和(117.5±14.5),p < 0.001), cDBP((80.6±11.0)和(78.3±11.4),p < 0.001), cPP((41.0±12.7)和(39.2±9.5),p < 0.001),美联社毫米汞柱((11.5±6.2)和(12.8±6.6),p < 0.001)、人工智能((26.4±9.0)%和(31.9±14.0)%,p < 0.01),末期((135.6±25.5)%和(137.8±26.4)%,p = 0.02)。两种仪器测量的cDBP (r = 0.812)呈强相关,cSBP (r = 0.762)、cPP (r = 0.702)和SEVR (r = 0.778)呈强相关,AP (r = 0.587)和AIx (r = 0.522)呈中相关(均p < 0.001)。对于两种设备的类内相关系数(ICC), cDBP (ICC = 0.794)和SEVR (ICC = 0.776)具有良好的再现性,而cSBP (ICC = 0.727)、cPP (ICC = 0.666)、AIx (ICC = 0.428)和AP (ICC = 0.575)具有良好至中等的再现性。两种仪器测量的cSBP、cDBP、cPP、AP、AIx、SEVR的差异分别为4.2±11.2 mm Hg、2.3±6.9 mm Hg、-1.8±9.0 mm Hg、-1.3±5.8 mm Hg、-5.6±12.0%、2.1±17.3%。结论:两种设备都显示出很强的cBP- bbp相关性和低偏倚,表明新的CONNEQT Pulse提供了与原始sphygmoor XCEL相似的cBP测量。虽然波形参数有较大的可变性,但差异的幅度在常规家庭血压监测中有意义使用的可接受范围内。测量精度(标准偏差)相对较高的可变性,很可能是由于在同一手臂上使用两个设备进行连续测量,需要使用两个手臂同时测量进一步评估。
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
自引率
4.50%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书