Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30450732›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018

Non-invasive measurement of reservoir pressure parameters from brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms.

Xiaoqing Peng, Martin G Schultz, Dean S Picone, Nathan Dwyer, J Andrew Black, Philip Roberts-Thomson, James E Sharman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The modified arterial reservoir: An update with consideration of asymptotic pressure (Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Xiaoqing PengMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1958-9623
Martin G SchultzMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Dean S PiconeMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Nathan DwyerMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
J Andrew BlackMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Philip Roberts-ThomsonMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
James E SharmanMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reservoir pressure parameters [eg, reservoir pressure (RP) and excess pressure (XSP)] are biomarkers derived from blood pressure (BP) waveforms that have been shown to predict cardiovascular events independent of conventional cardiovascular risk markers. However, whether RP and XSP can be derived non-invasively from operator-independent cuff device measured brachial or central BP waveforms has never been examined. This study sought to achieve this by comparison of cuff reservoir pressure parameters with intra-aortic reservoir pressure parameters. 162 participants (aged 61 ± 10 years, 72% male) undergoing coronary angiography had the simultaneous measurement of cuff BP waveforms (via SphygmoCor XCEL, AtCor Medical) and intra-aortic BP waveforms (via fluid-filled catheter). RP and XSP derived from cuff acquired brachial and central BP waveforms were compared with intra-aortic measures. Concordance between brachial-cuff and intra-aortic measurement was moderate-to-good for RP peak (36 ± 11 vs 48 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and poor-to-moderate for XSP peak (28 ± 10 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.60). Concordance between central-cuff and intra-aortic measurement was moderate-to-good for RP peak (35 ± 9 vs 46 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.82), but poor for XSP peak (12 ± 3 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.12, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.31). In conclusion, both brachial-cuff and central-cuff methods can reasonably estimate intra-aortic RP, whereas XSP can only be acceptably derived from brachial-cuff BP waveforms. This should enable widespread application to determine the clinical significance, but there is significant room for refinement of the method.

Indexed as

AgedArterial PressureAustraliaBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBrachial ArteryCardiovascular DiseasesCathetersCoronary AngiographyFemaleHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOscillometryarterial blood pressurehemodynamicsnon-invasiveoscillometryreservoir

Identifiers

PMID30450732
PMCPMC8031070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.