000			02771 am a22003133u 4500
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aBui Tan, V. _eauthor _92633
700	1	0	_aPicone, Dean S. _eauthor _92634
700	1	0	_aSchultz, Martin G. _eauthor _92635
700	1	0	_aArmstrong, Matthew K. _eauthor _92636
700	1	0	_aPeng, Xiaoqing _eauthor _92637
700	1	0	_aBlack, J. Andrew _eauthor _92638
700	1	0	_aDwyer, Nathan _eauthor _92639
700	1	0	_aRoberts-Thomson, Philip _eauthor _92640
700	1	0	_aAdams, Heath _eauthor _92641
700	1	0	_aHughes, Alun D. _eauthor _92642
700	1	0	_aSharman, James E. _eauthor _92643
245	0	0	_aComparison between cuff-based and invasive systolic blood pressure amplification
260			_c2022-10-01.
500			_a/pmc/articles/PMC7614121/
500			_a/pubmed/36052526
520			_aAccurate measurement of central blood pressure (BP) using upper arm cuff-based methods is associated with several factors, including determining the level of systolic BP (SBP) amplification. This study aimed to determine the agreement between cuff-based and invasively measured SBP amplification. Patients undergoing coronary angiography had invasive SBP amplification (brachial SBP - central SBP) measured simultaneously with cuff-based SBP amplification using a commercially available central BP device (device 1: Sphygmocor Xcel; n = 171, 70% men, 60 ± 10 years) and a now superseded model of a central BP device (device 2: Uscom BP+; n = 52, 83% men, 62 ± 10 years). Mean difference (±2SD, limits of agreement) between cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification was 4 mmHg (−12, +20 mmHg, P < 0.001) for device 1 and −2 mmHg (−14, +10 mmHg, P = 0.10) for device 2. Both devices systematically overestimated SBP amplification at lower levels and underestimated at higher levels of invasive SBP amplification, but with stronger bias for device 1 (r = −0.68 vs. r = −0.52; Z = 2.72; P = 0.008). Concordance of cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification across quartiles of invasive SBP amplification was low, particularly in the lowest and highest quartiles. The root mean square errors from regression between cuff-based central SBP and brachial SBP were significantly lower (indicating less variability) than from invasive regression models (P < 0.001). Irrespective of the difference from invasive measurements, cuff-based estimates of SBP amplification showed evidence of proportional systematic bias and had less individual variability. These observations could provide insights on how to improve the performance of cuff-based central BP.
540			_a
546			_aen
690			_aArticle
655	7		_aText _2local
786	0		_nJ Hypertens
856	4	1	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000003228 _zConnect to this object online.
999			_c2202 _d2202