Menzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania.
Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart.
J Hypertens. 2020 Jun;38(6):1033-1039. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002385.
Accurate assessment of mean arterial pressure (MAP) is crucial in research and clinical settings. Measurement of MAP requires not only pressure waveform integration but can also be estimated via form-factor equations incorporating peripheral SBP. SBP may increase variably from central-to-peripheral arteries (SBP amplification), and could influence accuracy of form-factor-derived MAP, which we aimed to determine.
One hundred and eighty-eight patients (69% men, age 60 ± 10 years) undergoing coronary angiography had intra-arterial pressure measured in the ascending aorta, brachial and radial arteries. Reference MAP was measured by waveform integration, and form-factor-derived MAP using 33 and 40% form-factors.
Reference MAP decreased from the aorta to the brachial (-0.7 ± 4.2 mmHg) and radial artery (-1.7 ± 4.8 mmHg), whereas form-factor-derived MAP increased (33% form-factor 1.1 ± 4.2 and 1.7 ± 4.7 mmHg; 40% form-factor 0.9 ± 4.8 and 1.4 ± 5.4 mmHg, respectively). Form-factor-derived MAP was significantly different to reference aortic MAP (33% form-factor -2.5 ± 4.6 and -1.6 ± 5.8, P < 0.001; 40% form-factor 2.5 ± 5.0 and 3.9 ± 6.4 mmHg, P < 0.001, brachial and radial arteries, respectively), with significant variation in the brachial form-factor required (FFreq) to generate MAP equivalent to reference aortic MAP (FFreq range 20-57% brachial; 17-74% radial). Aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification was strongly related to brachial FFreq (r = -0.695, P < 0.001). The 33% form-factor was most accurate with high aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification (33% form-factor MAP vs. reference aortic MAP difference 0.06 ± 3.93 mmHg, P = 0.89) but overestimated reference aortic MAP with low aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification (+5.8 ± 4.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). The opposite was observed for the 40% form-factor.
Due to variable SBP amplification, estimating MAP via form-factors produces nonphysiological inaccurate values. These findings have important implications for accurate assessment of MAP in research and clinical settings.
准确评估平均动脉压(MAP)在研究和临床环境中至关重要。MAP 的测量不仅需要压力波形积分,还可以通过包含外周 SBP 的形态因子方程进行估计。SBP 可能会从中动脉到外周动脉(SBP 放大)不同程度地增加,并且可能会影响形态因子衍生的 MAP 的准确性,我们旨在确定这一点。
188 名(69%为男性,年龄 60±10 岁)接受冠状动脉造影的患者在升主动脉、肱动脉和桡动脉中测量了动脉内压力。参考 MAP 通过波形积分测量,通过 33%和 40%形态因子测量形态因子衍生的 MAP。
与主动脉相比,参考 MAP 在肱动脉(-0.7±4.2mmHg)和桡动脉(-1.7±4.8mmHg)中降低,而形态因子衍生的 MAP 增加(33%形态因子 1.1±4.2mmHg 和 1.7±4.7mmHg;40%形态因子 0.9±4.8mmHg 和 1.4±5.4mmHg)。形态因子衍生的 MAP 与参考主动脉 MAP 明显不同(33%形态因子-2.5±4.6mmHg 和-1.6±5.8mmHg,P<0.001;40%形态因子 2.5±5.0mmHg 和 3.9±6.4mmHg,P<0.001,肱动脉和桡动脉),生成与参考主动脉 MAP 等效的 MAP 所需的形态因子(FFreq)的变化很大(FFreq 范围 20-57%肱动脉;17-74%桡动脉)。主动脉至肱动脉 SBP 放大与肱动脉 FFreq 密切相关(r=-0.695,P<0.001)。当主动脉至肱动脉 SBP 放大较高时,33%形态因子最准确(33%形态因子 MAP 与参考主动脉 MAP 差值 0.06±3.93mmHg,P=0.89),但当主动脉至肱动脉 SBP 放大较低时,会高估参考主动脉 MAP(+5.8±4.6mmHg,P<0.001)。对于 40%形态因子则相反。
由于 SBP 放大的变化,通过形态因子估计 MAP 会产生非生理的不准确值。这些发现对研究和临床环境中 MAP 的准确评估具有重要意义。