Cuff Under Pressure for Greater Accuracy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the evidence that describes what is being measured by upper-arm cuff blood pressure (BP) and the level of accuracy compared with invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Potential causes of inaccuracy and emerging methods are also discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: On average cuff systolic BP systematically underestimates invasive brachial systolic BP, although in a given individual it may substantially under- or over-estimate central aortic systolic BP. Such errors may affect individual health management outcomes and distort population level data on hypertension prevalence and control. Oscillometric cuff BP is particularly susceptible to inaccuracy in people with high arterial stiffness and with pathophysiological BP waveform shapes. Emerging cuff-less BP methods will be susceptible to inaccuracy if oscillometric cuff BP is used for calibration. The original purpose of cuff BP was to estimate central aortic BP. Recent evidence has shown substantial inaccuracy of oscillometric cuff BP exists for the measurement of invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Thus, development of more accurate BP methods, through better understanding of oscillometric and BP waveform morphology, is needed to improve health outcomes related to high BP

Physiological and clinical insights from reservoir-excess pressure analysis

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that reservoir-excess pressure model parameters provide physiological and clinical insights above and beyond standard blood pressure (BP) and pulse waveform analysis. This information has never been collectively examined and was the aim of this review. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with BP as the greatest cardiovascular disease risk factor. However, brachial systolic and diastolic BP provide limited information on the underlying BP waveform, missing important BP-related cardiovascular risk. A comprehensive analysis of the BP waveform is provided by parameters derived via the reservoir-excess pressure model, which include reservoir pressure, excess pressure, and systolic and diastolic rate constants and Pinfinity. These parameters, derived from the arterial BP waveform, provide information on the underlying arterial physiology and ventricular–arterial interactions otherwise missed by conventional BP and waveform indices. Application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in the clinical setting may facilitate a better understanding and earlier identification of cardiovascular dysfunction associated with disease. Indeed, reservoir-excess pressure parameters have been associated with sub-clinical markers of end-organ damage, cardiac and vascular dysfunction, and future cardiovascular events and mortality beyond conventional risk factors. In the future, greater understanding is needed on how the underlying physiology of the reservoir-excess pressure parameters informs cardiovascular disease risk prediction over conventional BP and waveform indices. Additional consideration should be given to the application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in clinical practice using new technologies embedded into conventional BP assessment methods

Excess pressure as an analogue of blood flow velocity

INTRODUCTION: Derivation of blood flow velocity from a blood pressure waveform is a novel technique, which could have potential clinical importance. Excess pressure, calculated from the blood pressure waveform via the reservoir-excess pressure model, is purported to be an analogue of blood flow velocity but this has never been examined in detail, which was the aim of this study. METHODS: Intra-arterial blood pressure was measured sequentially at the brachial and radial arteries via fluid-filled catheter simultaneously with blood flow velocity waveforms recorded via Doppler ultrasound on the contralateral arm (n = 98, aged 61 ± 10 years, 72% men). Excess pressure was derived from intra-arterial blood pressure waveforms using pressure-only reservoir-excess pressure analysis. RESULTS: Brachial and radial blood flow velocity waveform morphology were closely approximated by excess pressure derived from their respective sites of measurement (median cross-correlation coefficient r = 0.96 and r = 0.95 for brachial and radial comparisons, respectively). In frequency analyses, coherence between blood flow velocity and excess pressure was similar for brachial and radial artery comparisons (brachial and radial median coherence = 0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Brachial and radial blood flow velocity pulse heights were correlated with their respective excess pressure pulse heights (r = 0.53, P < 0.001 and r = 0.43, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Excess pressure is an analogue of blood flow velocity, thus affording the opportunity to derive potentially important information related to arterial blood flow using only the blood pressure waveform