Twenty-Four-Hour Ambulatory Pulse Wave Analysis in Hypertension Management: Current Evidence and Perspectives

The prognostic value of central systolic blood pressure has been established recently. At present, its noninvasive assessment is limited by the need of dedicated equipment and trained operators. Moreover, ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring of central pressures are not feasible. An algorithm enabling conventional automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors to assess central systolic pressure could be of value. We compared central systolic pressure, calculated with a transfer-function like method (ARCSolver algorithm), using waveforms recorded with a regular oscillometric cuff suitable for ambulatory measurements, with simultaneous high-fidelity invasive recordings, and with noninvasive estimations using a validated device, operating with radial tonometry and a generalized transfer function. Both studies revealed a good agreement between the oscillometric cuff-based central systolic pressure and the comparator. In the invasive study, composed of 30 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolver-based and invasive central systolic pressures was 3.0 mm Hg (SD: 6.0 mm Hg) with invasive calibration of brachial waveforms and -3.0 mm Hg (SD: 9.5 mm Hg) with noninvasive calibration of brachial waveforms. Results were similar when the reference method (radial tonometry/transfer function) was compared with invasive measurements. In the noninvasive study, composed of 111 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolver-derived and radial tonometry/transfer function-derived central systolic pressures was -0.5 mm Hg (SD: 4.7 mm Hg). In conclusion, a novel transfer function-like algorithm, using brachial cuff-based waveform recordings, is suited to provide a realistic estimation of central systolic pressure.

The importance of measuring aortic pulse wave velocity (PWVao), aortic augmentation index (Aix) and central systolic blood pressure (SBPao) has been shown under different clinical conditions; however, information on these parameters is hard to obtain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new, easily applicable oscillometric device (Arteriograph), determining these parameters simultaneously, against invasive measurements. Aortic Aix, SBPao and PWVao were measured invasively during cardiac catheterization in 16, 55 and 22 cases, respectively, and compared with the values measured by the Arteriograph. We found strong correlation between the invasively measured aortic Aix and the oscillometrically measured brachial Aix on either beat-to-beat or mean value per patient basis (r = 0.9, P < 0.001; r = 0.94, P < 0.001), which allowed the noninvasive calculation of the aortic Aix without using generalized transfer function. Similarly strong correlation (r = 0.95, P < 0.001) was found between the invasively measured and the noninvasively calculated central SBPao; furthermore, the BHS assessment of the paired differences fulfilled the 'B' grading. The PWVao values measured invasively and by Arteriograph were 9.41 ± 1.8 m/s and 9.46 ± 1.8 m/s, respectively (mean ± SD); furthermore, the Pearson's correlation was 0.91 (P < 0.001). The limits of agreement were 11.4% for aortic Aix and 1.59 m/s for PWVao. Aix, SBPao and PWVao, measured oscillometrically, showed strong correlation with the invasively obtained values. The observed limits of agreement are encouragingly low for accepting the method for clinical use. Our results suggest that the PWVao values, measured by Arteriograph, are close to the true aortic PWV, determined invasively.