Melenovsky Vojtech, Borlaug Barry A, Fetics Barry, Kessler Kristy, Shively Laura, Kass David A
Department of Cardiology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic.
J Hypertens. 2007 Jul;25(7):1403-9. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32811d69df.
Peripheral wave reflection augments central blood pressure and contributes to cardiac load. This pressure augmentation is not quantifiable from brachial cuff pressure but can be determined from carotid pulsations using the augmentation index (AI). However, carotid tonometry is technically challenging and difficult to standardize in practice. We tested whether automated radial pressure analysis provides a viable alternative.
Carotid and radial AI (cAI, rAI) were measured in 46 volunteers with a broad range of arterial properties. Data were assessed at rest, during a cold-pressor test, and following 0.4 mg of sublingual nitroglycerin. cAI correlated with rAI independent of age, mean blood pressure (BP), gender or body mass (cAI = 0.79 x rAI - 0.467, r = 0.81, P < 0.00001), with zero mean bias. There was individual variability in the prediction (difference of -4 +/- 23%), though 65% of the estimates fell within 15% of each other. Change in rAI and cAI with provocative maneuvers also correlated (r = 0.77, P < 0.001). Both cAI and rAI were nonlinearly related to late-systolic pressure-time integral (PTI), an index of cardiac load. At cAI < 0.1 or rAI < 0.69, PTI was unaltered, while greater values correlated with increased PTI. rAI accurately predicted this cut-off in 88% of cases, with a 5.5% false negative rate.
Automated rAI analysis is an easily applied method to assess basal and dynamic central pressure augmentation. While individual predictive accuracy of cAI was variable, overall population results were consistent, supporting use of rAI in clinical trials. Its prediction of when AI is associated with greater LV loading (i.e. cardiac risk) is good and may help stratify individual risk along with brachial cuff pressure.
外周波反射可增加中心血压并加重心脏负荷。这种血压升高无法通过肱动脉袖带压力进行量化,但可使用增强指数(AI)根据颈动脉搏动来确定。然而,颈动脉压力测定在技术上具有挑战性,且在实际操作中难以标准化。我们测试了自动桡动脉压力分析是否提供了一种可行的替代方法。
在46名具有广泛动脉特性的志愿者中测量了颈动脉和桡动脉AI(cAI、rAI)。在静息状态、冷加压试验期间以及舌下含服0.4mg硝酸甘油后对数据进行评估。cAI与rAI相关,不受年龄、平均血压(BP)、性别或体重的影响(cAI = 0.79×rAI - 0.467,r = 0.81,P < 0.00001),平均偏差为零。预测存在个体差异(差异为 -4±23%),不过65%的估计值彼此相差在15%以内。rAI和cAI随激发动作的变化也具有相关性(r = 0.77,P < 0.001)。cAI和rAI均与收缩晚期压力 - 时间积分(PTI)呈非线性相关,PTI是心脏负荷的一个指标。当cAI < 0.1或rAI < 0.69时,PTI未改变,而更高的值与PTI增加相关。rAI在88%的病例中准确预测了这一临界值,假阴性率为5.5%。
自动rAI分析是一种易于应用的方法,可用于评估基础和动态中心血压升高情况。虽然cAI的个体预测准确性存在差异,但总体人群结果是一致的,支持在临床试验中使用rAI。它对AI何时与更高的左心室负荷(即心脏风险)相关的预测良好,并且可能有助于结合肱动脉袖带压力对个体风险进行分层。