Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud, UNICEN-CCT CONICET, 4 de Abril 618, 7000, Tandil, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina.
Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, Centro Universitario de Investigación, Innovación y Diagnóstico Arterial (CUiiDARTE), Universidad de la República, General Flores 2125, 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay.
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2021 Mar;28(2):185-249. doi: 10.1007/s40292-021-00440-2. Epub 2021 Feb 23.
Systolic blood pressure (SBPA) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) were quantified using different methodological and calibration approaches to analyze (1) the association and agreement between different SBPA and PPA parameters and (2) the association between these SBPA and PPA parameters and left ventricle (LV) and atrium (LA) structural and functional characteristics.
In 269 healthy subjects, LV and LA parameters were echocardiography-derived. SBPA and PPA parameters were quantified using: (1) different equations (n = 9), (2) methodological approaches (n = 3): brachial sub-diastolic (Mobil-O-Graph®) and supra-systolic oscillometry (Arteriograph®) and aortic diameter waveform re-calibration (RCD; ultrasonography), and (3) using three different calibration schemes: systo-diastolic (SD), calculated mean (CM) and oscillometric mean (OscM).
SBPA and PPA parameters obtained with different equations, techniques, and calibration schemes show a highly variable association level (negative, non-significant, and/or positive) among them. The association between SBPA and PPA with cardiac parameters were highly variable (negative, non-significant, or positive associations). Differences in BPA parameter data between approaches were more sensitive to the calibration method than to the device used. Both, SBPA and PPA obtained with brachial sub-diastolic technique and calibrated to CM or OscM showed higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics.
Our data show that many of the parameters that assume to quantify the same phenomenon of BPA are not related to each other in the different age groups. Both, SBPA and PPA obtained with brachial sub-diastolic technique and calibrated to CM or OscM showed higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics.
使用不同的方法学和校准方法来量化收缩压(SBPA)和脉搏压放大(PPA),以分析(1)不同的 SBPA 和 PPA 参数之间的关联和一致性,以及(2)这些 SBPA 和 PPA 参数与左心室(LV)和心房(LA)结构和功能特征之间的关联。
在 269 名健康受试者中,使用超声心动图衍生出 LV 和 LA 参数。使用以下方法来量化 SBPA 和 PPA 参数:(1)不同的方程(n=9),(2)方法学方法(n=3):肱动脉舒张末期(Mobil-O-Graph®)和超收缩期震荡测量法(Arteriograph®)以及主动脉直径波形重新校准(RCD;超声),以及(3)使用三种不同的校准方案:收缩期-舒张期(SD)、计算平均值(CM)和震荡平均值(OscM)。
使用不同的方程、技术和校准方案获得的 SBPA 和 PPA 参数之间的关联水平(负、无显著性和/或正)具有高度的可变性。SBPA 和 PPA 与心脏参数之间的关联具有高度的可变性(负、无显著性或正相关)。不同方法之间的 BPA 参数数据差异对校准方法比对设备更敏感。使用肱动脉舒张末期技术获得的 SBPA 和 PPA,并以 CM 或 OscM 校准,与 LV 和 LA 结构特征的关联水平更高。
我们的数据表明,在不同年龄组中,许多假设用于量化相同的 BPA 现象的参数彼此之间没有关联。使用肱动脉舒张末期技术获得的 SBPA 和 PPA,并以 CM 或 OscM 校准,与 LV 和 LA 结构特征的关联水平更高。