{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Bui TV"],"funding":["NIDDK NIH HHS"],"pagination":["2037-2044"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7614121"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["40(10)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Objective</h4>Accurate 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.<h4>Methods</h4>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using a commercially available central BP device (device 1: Sphygmocor Xcel; n = 171, 70% men, 60 ± 10 years) and a now superseded model of a central BP device (device 2: Uscom BP+; n = 52, 83% men, 62 ± 10 years).<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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."],"journal":["Journal of hypertension"],"pubmed_title":["Comparison between cuff-based and invasive systolic blood pressure amplification."],"pmcid":["PMC7614121"],"funding_grant_id":["T32 DK007690"],"pubmed_authors":["Armstrong MK","Peng X","Black JA","Dwyer N","Hughes AD","Sharman JE","Schultz MG","Roberts-Thomson P","Bui TV","Picone DS","Adams H"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Comparison between cuff-based and invasive systolic blood pressure amplification.","description":"<h4>Objective</h4>Accurate 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.<h4>Methods</h4>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).<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 Oct","modification":"2025-04-04T20:35:42.612Z","creation":"2025-02-19T01:13:33.032Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC7614121","cross_references":{"pubmed":["36052526"],"doi":["10.1097/HJH.0000000000003228","10.1097/hjh.0000000000003228"]}}