AORTIC VESSEL WALL PROPERTIES DURING 60 DAYS STRICT HEAD DOWN TILT BEDREST - PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF AGBRESA

Background Changes in large artery properties including increased arterial compliance and increased carotid artery stiffness have been described after space flight. Altered vascular structure, which heralds cardiovascular risk, and reversible changes in vascular function could contribute to the response. Compared with previous studies, which did not reproduce these findings, AGBRESA applied strict -6° head-down bedrest (HDT) mimicking chronic cephalad fluid shifts in space. In this study, we assessed aortic vessel wall properties using state-of-the art imaging methods and pulse wave analysis and tested for possible protective effects of artificial gravity training. Material and Methods We present preliminary data from 12 healthy subjects (8 men, 4 women) obtained during baseline data collection 9-6 days before bedrest (BDC, supine position) and towards the end of two months head down tilt bedrest (MRI on day 56 and echocardiography on day 60 of HDT). Subjects were assigned to 30 minutes per day continuous short arm centrifugation (cAG), 6 times for 5 minutes interval short arm centrifugation, iAG), or a control group (ctr). We assessed aortic pulse wave velocity using oscillometric upper arm and thigh cuffs (PWV-2C, CardioCube, AIT, Vienna, Austria) and 4D-flow cardiac velocity encoded phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PWV-4D-MRI). We also measured area, area changes, and distensibility (AoD) of the ascending aorta by 2D-phase contrast cardiac MRI and arterial compliance (Ca) using transthoracic echocardiography. Results Mean aortic area increased in all subjects after 60 days head down tilt bedrest (5.3±0.7 vs. 5.8±0.7 cm², p<0.05). Stroke volume decreased from 94±13 to 84±10 ml (p<0.05) and pulse pressure from 56±11 to 46±9 mmHg (p<0.05) in part through reductions in stroke volume. The figure illustrates individual data on aortic properties (red diamonds = women). In contrast to the more consistent changes in aortic area, stroke volume, and pulse pressure, aortic distensibility, compliance, and pulse wave velocity responses show substantial inter-individual variability. Conclusion The important finding of our study is that 60 days strict head down bedrest elicit consistent changes in ascending aortic area, pulse pressure, and stroke volume. The resulting changes in vascular loading conditions likely confound vascular function measurements, both, in head down bedrest studies and in space

Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: ARTERY Society task force consensus statement on protocol standardization

The original Riva-Rocci method to measure blood pressure (BP) using a cuff at the upper arm assumed the pressure obtained by this technique was a good proxy for central aortic BP.1,2 The clinical (prognostic) importance of brachial cuff BP is undeniable for both the assessment of cardiovascular risk associated with elevated BP and the benefits of treatment-induced BP reduction.3 However, it is also generally appreciated that peripheral artery systolic BP (SBP; brachial or radial artery) may be an inaccurate substitute for central SBP.4 This has been reported in human studies using intra-arterial catheterization of peripheral and central arteries.5–8 There may also be a discrepancy between peripheral and central BP responses to vasoactive drugs.9 These findings are corroborated in larger studies using non-invasive central aortic BP methods,10–13 and, while yet to be fully adopted in clinical practice, an independent prognostic value of central BP has been demonstrated.14–16 Altogether, there is a growing interest among clinicians towards improving risk estimates by using devices that provide more accurate measures of central aortic BP than those provided by current brachial cuff BP methods. Many non-invasive devices have been developed that purport to estimate central BP from different peripheral artery sites (e.g. radial, brachial, carotid arteries) using different principles of recording the pressure or surrogate signals (e.g. applanation tonometry, oscillometry, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging) and different calibration methods to derive central BP. Since upper arm cuff-based devices to estimate central BP are more clinically appealing, in recent years several companies have developed such devices using a variety of techniques (e.g. oscillometric sub-diastolic or supra-systolic waveform analysis with generalized transfer functions), which employ a variety of signal processing steps to estimate central BP from peripheral signals.17,18 Yet, with no standardized guidelines,17 the accuracy testing of these new devices (as well as the preceding devices) has not been undertaken in a uniform fashion with comparable protocols, emphasizing the need for guidance in this field.19–22 An international task force was convened to address this situation

A new oscillometric method for pulse wave analysis: comparison with a common tonometric method

In the European Society of Cardiology–European Society of Hypertension guidelines of the year 2007, the consequences of arterial stiffness and wave reflection on cardiovascular mortality have a major role. But the investigators claimed the poor availability of devices/methods providing easy and widely suitable measuring of arterial wall stiffness or their surrogates like augmentation index (AIx) or aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP). The aim of this study was the validation of a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric method using a common cuff (ARCSolver) against a validated tonometric system (SphygmoCor). aSBP and AIx measured with the SphygmoCor and ARCSolver method were compared for 302 subjects. The mean age was 56 years with an s.d. of 20 years. At least two iterations were performed in each session. This resulted in 749 measurements. For aSBP the mean difference was −0.1 mm Hg with an s.d. of 3.1 mm Hg. The mean difference for AIx was 1.2% with an s.d. of 7.9%. There was no significant difference in reproducibility of AIx for both methods. The variation estimate of inter- and intraobserver measurements was 6.3% for ARCSolver and 7.5% for SphygmoCor. The ARCSolver method is a novel method determining AIx and aSBP based on an oscillometric system with a cuff. The results agree with common accepted tonometric measurements. Its application is easy and for widespread use

Rationale and study design of the prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study “rISk strAtification in end-stage renal disease” (ISAR) study

Background: The ISAR study is a prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study to improve the cardiovascular risk stratification in endstage renal disease (ESRD). The major goal is to characterize the cardiovascular phenotype of the study subjects, namely alterations in micro-and macrocirculation and to determine autonomic function. Methods/design: We intend to recruit 500 prevalent dialysis patients in 17 centers in Munich and the surrounding area. Baseline examinations include: (1) biochemistry, (2) 24-h Holter Electrocardiography (ECG) recordings, (3) 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM), (4) 24 h pulse wave analysis (PWA) and pulse wave velocity (PWV), (5) retinal vessel analysis (RVA) and (6) neurocognitive testing. After 24 months biochemistry and determination of single PWA, single PWV and neurocognitive testing are repeated. Patients will be followed up to 6 years for (1) hospitalizations, (2) cardiovascular and (3) non-cardiovascular events and (4) cardiovascular and (5) all-cause mortality. Discussion/conclusion: We aim to create a complex dataset to answer questions about the insufficiently understood pathophysiology leading to excessively high cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality in dialysis patients. Finally we hope to improve cardiovascular risk stratification in comparison to the use of classical and non-classical (dialysis-associated) risk factors and other models of risk stratification in ESRD patients by building a multivariable Cox-Regression model using a combination of the parameters measured in the study

Twenty-Four-Hour Central (Aortic) Systolic Blood Pressure: Reference Values and Dipping Patterns in Untreated Individuals.

Central (aortic) systolic blood pressure (cSBP) is the pressure seen by the heart, the brain, and the kidneys. If properly measured, cSBP is closer associated with hypertension-mediated organ damage and prognosis, as compared with brachial SBP (bSBP). We investigated 24-hour profiles of bSBP and cSBP, measured simultaneously using Mobilograph devices, in 2423 untreated adults (1275 women; age, 18-94 years), free from overt cardiovascular disease, aiming to develop reference values and to analyze daytime-nighttime variability. Central SBP was assessed, using brachial waveforms, calibrated with mean arterial pressure (MAP)/diastolic BP (cSBPMAP/DBPcal), or bSBP/diastolic blood pressure (cSBPSBP/DBPcal), and a validated transfer function, resulting in 144 509 valid brachial and 130 804 valid central measurements. Averaged 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime brachial BP across all individuals was 124/79, 126/81, and 116/72 mm Hg, respectively. Averaged 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime values for cSBPMAP/DBPcal were 128, 128, and 125 mm Hg and 115, 117, and 107 mm Hg for cSBPSBP/DBPcal, respectively. We pragmatically propose as upper normal limit for 24-hour cSBPMAP/DBPcal 135 mm Hg and for 24-hour cSBPSBP/DBPcal 120 mm Hg. bSBP dipping (nighttime-daytime/daytime SBP) was -10.6 % in young participants and decreased with increasing age. Central SBPSBP/DBPcal dipping was less pronounced (-8.7% in young participants). In contrast, cSBPMAP/DBPcal dipping was completely absent in the youngest age group and less pronounced in all other participants. These data may serve for comparison in various diseases and have potential implications for refining hypertension diagnosis and management. The different dipping behavior of bSBP versus cSBP requires further investigation

Validation of non-invasive central blood pressure devices: Artery society task force (abridged) consensus statement on protocol standardization

Brachial cuff blood pressure (BP) is clinically important, but may be an inaccurate substitute for central BP. Many non-invasive devices have been developed that purport to estimate central BP from peripheral artery sites, yet with no standardized guidelines; the accuracy testing of these new devices has not been undertaken in a uniform fashion with comparable protocols. This is an abridged paper describing the recommendations reached by an international task force convened to identify issues that need to be addressed and reach consensus relating to methods for assessing and reporting the accuracy (validation) of central BP devices. The recommendations are endorsed by the Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology (ARTERY) Society, as well as the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Arterial Structure and Function, and the ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. Researchers interested in validating central BP monitors should read the full version of the statement