Repeatability of central aortic blood pressures measured non-invasively using radial artery applanation tonometry and peripheral pulse wave analysis

Mike Crilly, Christoph Coch, Margaret Bruce, Hazel Clark, David Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To estimate the repeatability of radial pulse wave analysis (PWA) in measuring central systolic and diastolic blood pressures (cSBP/ cDBP), pulse pressure (cPP), augmentation pressure (cAP) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA). Methods. After 15 min supine rest, 20 ambulant patients (aged 27-82 years; four female) underwent four SphygmoCor PWA measurements on a single occasion. Two nurses independently undertook two measurements in alternate order, blind to their colleague's measurements. Analysis was by Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA). Results. Heart rate and brachial blood pressure (BP) were stable during assessment. Based on the average of two PWA measurements between-observer differences (LOA, mean difference +/- 2SD) were small (cSBP 1.5 +/- 10.9 mmHg; cDBP 0.4 +/- 5.2 mmHg; cAP 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg; cPP 1.1 +/- 10.5 mmHg; PPA 20.5% +/- 5.6%). Between-observer differences were much greater for single/ initial PWA measurement (cSBP 3.6 +/- 15.9 mmHg; cDBP 2.8 +/- 8.8 mmHg; cAP 0.7 +/- 5.8 mmHg; cPP 0.8 +/- 13.6 mmHg; PPA 21.2 +/- 9.4%). Within- observer LOA were very similar for both nurse A (cSBP 24.2 +/- 14.1 mmHg; cDBP 24.6 +/- 13.1 mmHg; cAP 20.4 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 0.5 +/- 11.0 mmHg; PPA 0.7% +/- 9.0%) and nurse B (cSBP 0.0 +/- 12.1 mmHg; cDBP 0.2 +/- 8.5 mmHg; cAP 20.1 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 20.2 +/- 11.9 mmHg; PPA 20.7% +/- 10.6%). Conclusion. Non-invasive assessment of central aortic pressures using PWA on a single occasion is highly repeatable in ambulant patients even when used by relatively inexperienced staff.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)262-269
Number of pages8
JournalBlood Pressure
Volume16
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2007

Keywords

  • applanation tonometry
  • central blood pressure
  • measurement error
  • pulse wave analysis
  • radial artery
  • reproducibility
  • healthy-subjects
  • metaanalysis
  • stiffness
  • mortality
  • outcomes
  • form

Cite this

Repeatability of central aortic blood pressures measured non-invasively using radial artery applanation tonometry and peripheral pulse wave analysis. / Crilly, Mike; Coch, Christoph; Bruce, Margaret; Clark, Hazel; Williams, David.

In: Blood Pressure, Vol. 16, No. 4, 01.2007, p. 262-269.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Crilly, Mike ; Coch, Christoph ; Bruce, Margaret ; Clark, Hazel ; Williams, David. / Repeatability of central aortic blood pressures measured non-invasively using radial artery applanation tonometry and peripheral pulse wave analysis. In: Blood Pressure. 2007 ; Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 262-269.
@article{854d8b335cd644c0a8727c938e24043f,
title = "Repeatability of central aortic blood pressures measured non-invasively using radial artery applanation tonometry and peripheral pulse wave analysis",
abstract = "Objective. To estimate the repeatability of radial pulse wave analysis (PWA) in measuring central systolic and diastolic blood pressures (cSBP/ cDBP), pulse pressure (cPP), augmentation pressure (cAP) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA). Methods. After 15 min supine rest, 20 ambulant patients (aged 27-82 years; four female) underwent four SphygmoCor PWA measurements on a single occasion. Two nurses independently undertook two measurements in alternate order, blind to their colleague's measurements. Analysis was by Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA). Results. Heart rate and brachial blood pressure (BP) were stable during assessment. Based on the average of two PWA measurements between-observer differences (LOA, mean difference +/- 2SD) were small (cSBP 1.5 +/- 10.9 mmHg; cDBP 0.4 +/- 5.2 mmHg; cAP 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg; cPP 1.1 +/- 10.5 mmHg; PPA 20.5{\%} +/- 5.6{\%}). Between-observer differences were much greater for single/ initial PWA measurement (cSBP 3.6 +/- 15.9 mmHg; cDBP 2.8 +/- 8.8 mmHg; cAP 0.7 +/- 5.8 mmHg; cPP 0.8 +/- 13.6 mmHg; PPA 21.2 +/- 9.4{\%}). Within- observer LOA were very similar for both nurse A (cSBP 24.2 +/- 14.1 mmHg; cDBP 24.6 +/- 13.1 mmHg; cAP 20.4 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 0.5 +/- 11.0 mmHg; PPA 0.7{\%} +/- 9.0{\%}) and nurse B (cSBP 0.0 +/- 12.1 mmHg; cDBP 0.2 +/- 8.5 mmHg; cAP 20.1 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 20.2 +/- 11.9 mmHg; PPA 20.7{\%} +/- 10.6{\%}). Conclusion. Non-invasive assessment of central aortic pressures using PWA on a single occasion is highly repeatable in ambulant patients even when used by relatively inexperienced staff.",
keywords = "applanation tonometry, central blood pressure, measurement error, pulse wave analysis, radial artery, reproducibility, healthy-subjects, metaanalysis, stiffness, mortality, outcomes, form",
author = "Mike Crilly and Christoph Coch and Margaret Bruce and Hazel Clark and David Williams",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1080/08037050701464385",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "262--269",
journal = "Blood Pressure",
issn = "0803-7051",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repeatability of central aortic blood pressures measured non-invasively using radial artery applanation tonometry and peripheral pulse wave analysis

AU - Crilly, Mike

AU - Coch, Christoph

AU - Bruce, Margaret

AU - Clark, Hazel

AU - Williams, David

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Objective. To estimate the repeatability of radial pulse wave analysis (PWA) in measuring central systolic and diastolic blood pressures (cSBP/ cDBP), pulse pressure (cPP), augmentation pressure (cAP) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA). Methods. After 15 min supine rest, 20 ambulant patients (aged 27-82 years; four female) underwent four SphygmoCor PWA measurements on a single occasion. Two nurses independently undertook two measurements in alternate order, blind to their colleague's measurements. Analysis was by Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA). Results. Heart rate and brachial blood pressure (BP) were stable during assessment. Based on the average of two PWA measurements between-observer differences (LOA, mean difference +/- 2SD) were small (cSBP 1.5 +/- 10.9 mmHg; cDBP 0.4 +/- 5.2 mmHg; cAP 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg; cPP 1.1 +/- 10.5 mmHg; PPA 20.5% +/- 5.6%). Between-observer differences were much greater for single/ initial PWA measurement (cSBP 3.6 +/- 15.9 mmHg; cDBP 2.8 +/- 8.8 mmHg; cAP 0.7 +/- 5.8 mmHg; cPP 0.8 +/- 13.6 mmHg; PPA 21.2 +/- 9.4%). Within- observer LOA were very similar for both nurse A (cSBP 24.2 +/- 14.1 mmHg; cDBP 24.6 +/- 13.1 mmHg; cAP 20.4 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 0.5 +/- 11.0 mmHg; PPA 0.7% +/- 9.0%) and nurse B (cSBP 0.0 +/- 12.1 mmHg; cDBP 0.2 +/- 8.5 mmHg; cAP 20.1 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 20.2 +/- 11.9 mmHg; PPA 20.7% +/- 10.6%). Conclusion. Non-invasive assessment of central aortic pressures using PWA on a single occasion is highly repeatable in ambulant patients even when used by relatively inexperienced staff.

AB - Objective. To estimate the repeatability of radial pulse wave analysis (PWA) in measuring central systolic and diastolic blood pressures (cSBP/ cDBP), pulse pressure (cPP), augmentation pressure (cAP) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA). Methods. After 15 min supine rest, 20 ambulant patients (aged 27-82 years; four female) underwent four SphygmoCor PWA measurements on a single occasion. Two nurses independently undertook two measurements in alternate order, blind to their colleague's measurements. Analysis was by Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA). Results. Heart rate and brachial blood pressure (BP) were stable during assessment. Based on the average of two PWA measurements between-observer differences (LOA, mean difference +/- 2SD) were small (cSBP 1.5 +/- 10.9 mmHg; cDBP 0.4 +/- 5.2 mmHg; cAP 0.5 +/- 4.5 mmHg; cPP 1.1 +/- 10.5 mmHg; PPA 20.5% +/- 5.6%). Between-observer differences were much greater for single/ initial PWA measurement (cSBP 3.6 +/- 15.9 mmHg; cDBP 2.8 +/- 8.8 mmHg; cAP 0.7 +/- 5.8 mmHg; cPP 0.8 +/- 13.6 mmHg; PPA 21.2 +/- 9.4%). Within- observer LOA were very similar for both nurse A (cSBP 24.2 +/- 14.1 mmHg; cDBP 24.6 +/- 13.1 mmHg; cAP 20.4 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 0.5 +/- 11.0 mmHg; PPA 0.7% +/- 9.0%) and nurse B (cSBP 0.0 +/- 12.1 mmHg; cDBP 0.2 +/- 8.5 mmHg; cAP 20.1 +/- 4.4 mmHg; cPP 20.2 +/- 11.9 mmHg; PPA 20.7% +/- 10.6%). Conclusion. Non-invasive assessment of central aortic pressures using PWA on a single occasion is highly repeatable in ambulant patients even when used by relatively inexperienced staff.

KW - applanation tonometry

KW - central blood pressure

KW - measurement error

KW - pulse wave analysis

KW - radial artery

KW - reproducibility

KW - healthy-subjects

KW - metaanalysis

KW - stiffness

KW - mortality

KW - outcomes

KW - form

U2 - 10.1080/08037050701464385

DO - 10.1080/08037050701464385

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 262

EP - 269

JO - Blood Pressure

JF - Blood Pressure

SN - 0803-7051

IS - 4

ER -