eCite Digital Repository

Accuracy of commercial devices and methods for noninvasive estimation of aortic systolic blood pressure a systematic review and meta-analysis of invasive validation studies

Citation

Papaioannou, TG and Karageorgopoulou, TD and Sergentanis, TN and Protogerou, AD and Psaltopoulou, T and Sharman, JE and Weber, T and Blacher, J and Daskalopoulou, SS and Wassertheurer, S and Khir, AW and Vlachopoulos, C and Stergiopulos, N and Stefanadis, C and Nichols, WW and Tousoulis, D, Accuracy of commercial devices and methods for noninvasive estimation of aortic systolic blood pressure a systematic review and meta-analysis of invasive validation studies, Journal of Hypertension, 34, (7) pp. 1237-1248. ISSN 0263-6352 (2016) [Refereed Article]

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

DOI: doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000921

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although compelling evidence has established the physiological and clinical relevance of aortic SBP (a-SBP), no consensus exists regarding the validity of the available methods/techniques that noninvasively measure it.

OBJECTIVES: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of commercial devices estimating a-SBP noninvasively, which have been validated by invasive measurement of a-SBP. Moreover their optimal mode of application, in terms of calibration, as well as specific technique and arterial site of pulse wave acquisition were further investigated.

METHODS: The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines; 22 eligible studies were included, which validated invasively 11 different commercial devices in 808 study participants.

RESULTS: Overall, the error in a-SBP estimation (estimated minus actual value) was -4.49 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.06 to -2.92 mmHg]. The estimated (noninvasive) a-SBP differed from the actual (invasive) value depending on calibration method: by -1.08 mmHg (95% CI: -2.81, 0.65 mmHg) and by -5.81 mmHg (95% CI: -7.79, -3.84 mmHg), when invasively and noninvasively measured brachial BP values were used respectively; by -1.83 mmHg, (95% CI: -3.32, -0.34 mmHg), and by 7.78 mmHg (95% CI: -10.28, -5.28 mmHg), when brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP and SBP/DBP were used, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Automated recording of waveforms, calibrated noninvasively by brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP values seems the most promising approach that can provide relatively more accurate, noninvasive estimation of a-SBP. It is still uncertain whether a specific device can be recommended as 'gold standard'; however, a consensus is currently demanding.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:accuracy, aortic hemodynamics, applanation tonometry, calibration, fluid-filled catheter manometer systems, micro-tip pressure transducers, oscillometry, pressure wave, pulse wave analysis, transfer functions
Research Division:Medical and Health Sciences
Research Group:Cardiorespiratory Medicine and Haematology
Research Field:Cardiology (incl. Cardiovascular Diseases)
Objective Division:Health
Objective Group:Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions)
Objective Field:Cardiovascular System and Diseases
Author:Sharman, JE (Professor James Sharman)
ID Code:109370
Year Published:2016
Web of Science® Times Cited:10
Deposited By:Menzies Institute for Medical Research
Deposited On:2016-06-09
Last Modified:2017-02-08
Downloads:0

Repository Staff Only: item control page