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
