评估仅通过肱动脉袖带估测主动脉收缩压的准确性:与径向测压法的比较。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Denis Chemla, Davide Agnoletti, Pierre Attal, Sandrine Millasseau, Jacques Blacher, Mathieu Jozwiak
{"title":"评估仅通过肱动脉袖带估测主动脉收缩压的准确性:与径向测压法的比较。","authors":"Denis Chemla, Davide Agnoletti, Pierre Attal, Sandrine Millasseau, Jacques Blacher, Mathieu Jozwiak","doi":"10.1093/ajh/hpae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A novel method for estimating central systolic aortic pressure (cSAP) has emerged, relying solely on the peripheral mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures. We aimed to assess the accuracy of this Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation using cuff alone (DCBPcuff = MBP2/DBP) in comparison to the use of a generalized transfer function to derive cSAP from radial tonometry (cSAPtono).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis involved the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (IDCARS) data (Aparicio et al., Am J Hypertens 2022). The dataset encompassed 10,930 subjects from 13 longitudinal cohort studies worldwide (54.8% women; median age 46.0 years; office hypertension: 40.1%; treated: 61.0%), documenting cSAPtono via SphygmoCor calibrated against brachial systolic BP (SBP) and DBP. Our analysis focused on aggregate group data from 12/13 studies (89% patients) where a full BP dataset was available. A 35% form factor was used to estimate MBP = (DBP + (0.35 × (SBP-DBP)), from which DCBPcuff was derived. The predefined acceptable error for cSAPtono estimation was set at ≤ 5 mm Hg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cSAPtono values ranged from 103.8-127.0 mm Hg (n = 12). The error between DCBPcuff and cSAPtono was 0.2 ± 1.4 mm Hg, with no influence of the mean. Errors ranged from -1.8 to 2.9 mm Hg across studies. No significant difference in errors was observed between BP measurements obtained via oscillometry (n = 9) vs. auscultation (n = 3) (P = 0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using published aggregate group data and a 35% form factor, DCBPcuff demonstrated remarkable accuracy in estimating cSAPtono, regardless of the BP measurement technique. However, given that individual BP values were unavailable, further documentation is required to establish DCBPcuff's precision.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Accuracy of Systolic Aortic Pressure Estimation From a Brachial Cuff Alone: A Comparison With Radial Tonometry.\",\"authors\":\"Denis Chemla, Davide Agnoletti, Pierre Attal, Sandrine Millasseau, Jacques Blacher, Mathieu Jozwiak\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajh/hpae039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A novel method for estimating central systolic aortic pressure (cSAP) has emerged, relying solely on the peripheral mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures. We aimed to assess the accuracy of this Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation using cuff alone (DCBPcuff = MBP2/DBP) in comparison to the use of a generalized transfer function to derive cSAP from radial tonometry (cSAPtono).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis involved the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (IDCARS) data (Aparicio et al., Am J Hypertens 2022). The dataset encompassed 10,930 subjects from 13 longitudinal cohort studies worldwide (54.8% women; median age 46.0 years; office hypertension: 40.1%; treated: 61.0%), documenting cSAPtono via SphygmoCor calibrated against brachial systolic BP (SBP) and DBP. Our analysis focused on aggregate group data from 12/13 studies (89% patients) where a full BP dataset was available. A 35% form factor was used to estimate MBP = (DBP + (0.35 × (SBP-DBP)), from which DCBPcuff was derived. The predefined acceptable error for cSAPtono estimation was set at ≤ 5 mm Hg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cSAPtono values ranged from 103.8-127.0 mm Hg (n = 12). The error between DCBPcuff and cSAPtono was 0.2 ± 1.4 mm Hg, with no influence of the mean. Errors ranged from -1.8 to 2.9 mm Hg across studies. No significant difference in errors was observed between BP measurements obtained via oscillometry (n = 9) vs. auscultation (n = 3) (P = 0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using published aggregate group data and a 35% form factor, DCBPcuff demonstrated remarkable accuracy in estimating cSAPtono, regardless of the BP measurement technique. However, given that individual BP values were unavailable, further documentation is required to establish DCBPcuff's precision.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae039\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:出现了一种仅依靠外周平均血压(MBP)和舒张压(DBP)估算中心收缩主动脉压(cSAP)的新方法。我们的目的是评估仅使用袖带估算直接中心血压(DCBPcuff=MBP²/DBP)与使用广义传递函数从径向测压法得出 cSAP(cSAPtono)的准确性:这项回顾性分析涉及用于风险分层的中心动脉特性国际数据库(IDCARS)数据(Aparicio 等人,Am J Hypertens 2022)。数据集包括来自全球 13 项纵向队列研究的 10,930 名受试者(54.8% 为女性;中位年龄 46.0 岁;办公室高血压:40.1%;接受过治疗:61.0%),通过与肱动脉收缩压 (SBP) 和 DBP 校准的 SphygmoCor 记录了 cSAPtono。我们的分析侧重于 12/13 项研究(89% 的患者)的总体组数据,这些研究提供了完整的血压数据集。使用 35% 的形式因子估算 MBP = (DBP+(0.35×(SBP-DBP)),由此得出 DCBPcuff。预设的 cSAPtono 估计可接受误差为 ≤5mmHg:cSAPtono 值范围为 103.8-127.0 mmHg(n=12)。DCBPcuff 和 cSAPtono 之间的误差为 0.2 ± 1.4 mmHg,平均值不受影响。不同研究的误差范围为-1.8 至 2.9 mmHg。通过示波法(n=9)与听诊法(n=3)测量的血压误差无明显差异(p=0.50):结论:DCBPcuff 使用已发表的总体组数据和 35% 的外形系数,在估算 cSAPtono 方面表现出了非凡的准确性,而与血压测量技术无关。然而,由于无法获得单个血压值,因此需要进一步的文献资料来确定 DCBPcuff 的精确度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Accuracy of Systolic Aortic Pressure Estimation From a Brachial Cuff Alone: A Comparison With Radial Tonometry.

Background: A novel method for estimating central systolic aortic pressure (cSAP) has emerged, relying solely on the peripheral mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures. We aimed to assess the accuracy of this Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation using cuff alone (DCBPcuff = MBP2/DBP) in comparison to the use of a generalized transfer function to derive cSAP from radial tonometry (cSAPtono).

Methods: This retrospective analysis involved the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (IDCARS) data (Aparicio et al., Am J Hypertens 2022). The dataset encompassed 10,930 subjects from 13 longitudinal cohort studies worldwide (54.8% women; median age 46.0 years; office hypertension: 40.1%; treated: 61.0%), documenting cSAPtono via SphygmoCor calibrated against brachial systolic BP (SBP) and DBP. Our analysis focused on aggregate group data from 12/13 studies (89% patients) where a full BP dataset was available. A 35% form factor was used to estimate MBP = (DBP + (0.35 × (SBP-DBP)), from which DCBPcuff was derived. The predefined acceptable error for cSAPtono estimation was set at ≤ 5 mm Hg.

Results: The cSAPtono values ranged from 103.8-127.0 mm Hg (n = 12). The error between DCBPcuff and cSAPtono was 0.2 ± 1.4 mm Hg, with no influence of the mean. Errors ranged from -1.8 to 2.9 mm Hg across studies. No significant difference in errors was observed between BP measurements obtained via oscillometry (n = 9) vs. auscultation (n = 3) (P = 0.50).

Conclusions: Using published aggregate group data and a 35% form factor, DCBPcuff demonstrated remarkable accuracy in estimating cSAPtono, regardless of the BP measurement technique. However, given that individual BP values were unavailable, further documentation is required to establish DCBPcuff's precision.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信