Search

Clinic blood pressure (BP) is recommended for absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment. However, in 'real-world' settings, clinic BP measurement is unstandardised and less reliable compared to more rigorous methods but the impact for absolute CVD risk assessment is unknown. This study aimed to determine the difference in absolute CVD risk assessment using real-world clinic BP compared to standardised BP methods. Participants were patients (n = 226, 59 ± 15 years; 58% female) with hypertension referred to a BP clinic for assessment. 'Real-world' clinic BP was provided by the referring doctor. All participants had unobserved automated office BP (AOBP) and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) measured at the clinic. Absolute CVD risk was calculated (Framingham) using systolic BP from the referring doctor (clinic BP), AOBP and ABPM, with agreement assessed by Kappa statistic. Clinic systolic BP was 18 mmHg than AOBP and daytime ABPM and 22 mmHg higher than 24-h ABPM (p < 0.001). Subsequently, absolute CVD risk scores using clinic BP were higher compared to AOBP, daytime ABPM and 24-h ABPM (10.4 ± 8.1%, 7.8 ± 6.4%, 7.8 ± 6.3%, and 7.3 ± 6.1%, respectively, P < 0.001). As a result, more participants were classified as high CVD risk using clinic BP (n = 89, 40%) compared with AOBP (n = 44, 20%) daytime ABPM (n = 38, 17%) and 24-h ABPM (n = 38, 17%) (p < 0.001) with weak agreement in risk classification (κ = 0.57[0.45-0.69], κ = 0.52[0.41-0.64] and κ = 0.55[0.43-0.66], respectively). Real-world clinic BP was higher and classified twice as many participants at high CVD risk compared to AOBP or ABPM. Given the challenges to high-quality BP measurement in clinic, more rigorous BP measurement methods are needed for absolute CVD risk assessment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Central aortic BP may predict cardiovascular outcomes better than upper arm brachial BP. In recent years, technology has enabled central BP estimation by recording a peripheral BP waveform from a standard upper arm cuff. The accuracy of these devices is not well documented, and this study aimed to address this issue., Methods: This study was a systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, of observational studies published between 2008 and 2023 that reported accuracy testing of cuff-based central BP devices, compared with reference invasive aortic BP. The primary analysis was stratified according to each commercially available device. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models based on mean differences and standard errors., Results: Six thousand four hundred and fifteen studies were screened, and 27 studies met inclusion criteria (plus one unpublished study). This generated data for seven devices that are commercially available, which were tested among 2125 adult participants. There was very high heterogeneity when all devices were pooled ( I2  = 97.5%), and, when stratified by device, the accuracy of estimated central BP was highly device-dependent (range of accuracy across different devices -12.4 mmHg (-16.3 to -8.5) to 3.2 mmHg (0.2-6.1). Two of the seven commercially available devices had not undergone external validation testing., Conclusion: The accuracy of commercially available cuff-based central BP devices is highly device-specific and not all are accurate for the estimation of central SBP. These findings have major implications for the appropriate interpretation of studies that use cuff-based estimated central BP., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Accurate measurement of arterial blood pressure (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of hypertension. This narrative review highlights the challenges associated with conventional (cuff-based) BP measurement and potential solutions. This work covers each method of cuff-based BP measurement, as well as cuffless alternatives, but is primarily focused on ambulatory BP monitoring., Results: Manual BP measurement requires stringent training and standardized protocols which are often difficult to ensure in stressful and time-restricted clinical office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) scenarios. Home Blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) can identify white-coat and masked hypertension but strongly depends on patient adherence to measurement techniques and procedure. The widespread use of nonvalidated automated HBPM devices raises further concerns about measurement accuracy. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) may be used in addition to OBPM. It is recommended to diagnose white-coat and masked hypertension as well as nocturnal BP and dipping, which are the BP values most predictive for major adverse cardiac events. Nonetheless, ABPM is limited by its non-continuous nature and susceptibility to measurement artefacts. This leads to poor overall reproducibility of ABPM results, especially regarding clinical parameters such as BP variability or dipping patterns., Conclusions: Cuff-based BP measurement, despite some limitations, is vital for cardiovascular health assessment in clinical practice. Given the wide range of methodological limitations, the paradigm's potential for improvement is not yet fully realized. There are impactful and easily incorporated opportunities for innovation regarding the enhancement of measurement accuracy and reliability as well as the clinical interpretation of the retrieved data. There is a clear need for continued research and technological advancement to improve BP measurement as the premier tool for cardiovascular disease detection and management.

Blood pressure (BP) is a key contributor to the lifetime risk of preclinical organ damage and cardiovascular disease. Traditional clinic-based BP readings are typically measured infrequently and under standardized/resting conditions and therefore do not capture BP values during normal everyday activity. Therefore, current hypertension guidelines emphasize the importance of incorporating out-of-office BP measurement into strategies for hypertension diagnosis and management. However, conventional home and ambulatory BP monitoring devices use the upper-arm cuff oscillometric method and only provide intermittent BP readings under static conditions or in a limited number of situations. New innovations include technologies for BP estimation based on processing of sensor signals supported by artificial intelligence tools, technologies for remote monitoring, reporting and storage of BP data, and technologies for BP data interpretation and patient interaction designed to improve hypertension management ("digital therapeutics"). The number and volume of data relating to new devices/technologies is increasing rapidly and will continue to grow. This International Society of Hypertension position paper describes the new devices/technologies, presents evidence relating to new BP measurement techniques and related indices, highlights standard for the validation of new devices/technologies, discusses the reliability and utility of novel BP monitoring devices, the association of these metrics with clinical outcomes, and the use of digital therapeutics. It also highlights the challenges and evidence gaps that need to be overcome before these new technologies can be considered as a user-friendly and accurate source of novel BP data to inform clinical hypertension management strategies., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Blood pressure(BP) management interventions have been shown to be more effective when accompanied by appropriate patient education. As high BP remains poorly controlled, there may be gaps in patient knowledge and education. Therefore, this study aimed to identify specific content and delivery preferences for information to support BP management among Australian adults from the general public. Given that BP management is predominantly undertaken by general practitioners(GPs), information preferences to support BP management were also ascertained from a small sample of Australian GPs. An online survey of adults was conducted to identify areas of concern for BP management to inform content preferences and preferred format for information delivery. A separate online survey was also delivered to GPs to determine preferred information sources to support BP management. Participants were recruited via social media. General public participants (n = 465) were mostly female (68%), >60 years (57%) and 49% were taking BP-lowering medications. The management of BP without medications, and role of lifestyle in BP management were of concern among 30% and 26% of adults respectively. Most adults (73%) preferred to access BP management information from their GP. 57% of GPs (total n = 23) preferred information for supporting BP management to be delivered via one-page summaries. This study identified that Australian adults would prefer more information about the management of BP without medications and via lifestyle delivered by their GP. This could be achieved by providing GPs with one-page summaries on relevant topics to support patient education and ultimately improve BP management., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Measurement of home blood pressure is an important tool for the management of hypertension. However, the validity of home devices is of concern. The Recommended Blood Pressure Devices Program of Hypertension Canada reviews and recommends blood pressure devices using international validation standards. We sought to determine the proportion of Hypertension Canada-recommended devices available for purchase in pharmacies and online., Methods: We visited 16 community pharmacies in the Edmonton area to record the blood pressure devices they sold. We also reviewed the 50 most popular devices from online retailers (Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, and Canadian Tire). All devices were referenced against the Recommended Blood Pressure Device Program of Hypertension Canada (www.hypertension.ca/bpdevices) to determine if the models were recommended., Results: We reviewed 170 devices. Of those sold in pharmacies, 61 of 68 (89.7%) were Hypertension Canada-recommended devices, whereas online retailers had only 46 of 102 (45.1%) recommended devices; P < 0.001., Conclusions: Most blood pressure devices sold in pharmacies are Hypertension Canada recommended, in contrast to less than one-half from online retailers. The lack of validation of many home blood pressure devices could have important clinical implications, leading to over- or undertreatment of hypertension. Clinicians should advise patients on the importance of home blood pressure device validation and direct them to resources such as Hypertension Canada (https://hypertension.ca/public/recommended-devices) for guidance., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objective: Hypertension management is directed by cuff blood pressure (BP), but this may be inaccurate, potentially influencing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and health costs. This study aimed to determine the impact on CVD events and related costs of the differences between cuff and invasive SBP., Methods: Microsimulations based on Markov modelling over one year were used to determine the differences in the number of CVD events (myocardial infarction or coronary death, stroke, atrial fibrillation or heart failure) predicted by Framingham risk and total CVD health costs based on cuff SBP compared with invasive (aortic) SBP. Modelling was based on international consortium data from 1678 participants undergoing cardiac catheterization and 30 separate studies. Cuff underestimation and overestimation were defined as cuff SBP less than invasive SBP and cuff SBP greater than invasive SBP, respectively., Results: The proportion of people with cuff SBP underestimation versus overestimation progressively increased as SBP increased. This reached a maximum ratio of 16 : 1 in people with hypertension grades II and III. Both the number of CVD events missed (predominantly stroke, coronary death and myocardial infarction) and associated health costs increased stepwise across levels of SBP control, as cuff SBP underestimation increased. The maximum number of CVD events potentially missed (11.8/1000 patients) and highest costs ($241 300 USD/1000 patients) were seen in people with hypertension grades II and III and with at least 15 mmHg of cuff SBP underestimation., Conclusion: Cuff SBP underestimation can result in potentially preventable CVD events being missed and major increases in health costs. These issues could be remedied with improved cuff SBP accuracy., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Automated cuff measured blood pressure (BP) is the global standard used for diagnosing hypertension, but there are concerns regarding the accuracy of the method. Individual variability in systolic BP (SBP) amplification from central (aorta) to peripheral (brachial) arteries could be related to the accuracy of cuff BP, but this has never been determined and was the aim of this study. Automated cuff BP and invasive brachial BP were recorded in 795 participants (74% male, aged 64 ± 11 years) receiving coronary angiography at five independent research sites (using seven different automated cuff BP devices). SBP amplification was recorded invasively by catheter and defined as brachial SBP minus aortic SBP. Compared with invasive brachial SBP, cuff SBP was significantly underestimated (130 ± 18 mmHg vs. 138 ± 22 mmHg, p < 0.001). The level of SBP amplification varied significantly among individuals (mean ± SD, 7.3 ± 9.1 mmHg) and was similar to level of difference between cuff and invasive brachial SBP (mean difference -7.6 ± 11.9 mmHg). SBP amplification explained most of the variance in accuracy of cuff SBP (R 2  = 19%). The accuracy of cuff SBP was greatest among participants with the lowest SBP amplification (p trend < 0.001). After cuff BP values were corrected for SBP amplification, there was a significant improvement in the mean difference from the intra-arterial standard (p < 0.0001) and in the accuracy of hypertension classification according to 2017 ACC/AHA guideline thresholds (p = 0.005). The level of SBP amplification is a critical factor associated with the accuracy of conventional automated cuff measured BP., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Raised blood pressure (BP) remains the single most important modifiable risk factor contributing to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in Australia and worldwide. May Measurement Month , a global BP measurement and screening campaign initiated by the International Society of Hypertension and carried out in Australia since its inception in 2017, aimed at obtaining standardized BP measurements from members of the community to increase awareness of high BP and its associated risks., Method: Adults participants (≥18 years) were recruited through opportunistic sampling across Australia during the month of May in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Trained volunteers recorded BP readings in a standardized manner and collected data on demographic, lifestyle factors and comorbidities. Hypertension was defined as SBP of at least 140 mmHg, or DBP of at least 90 mmHg, or taking antihypertensive medication. Data were collated centrally and analysis was carried out using regression models to evaluate the associations between BP and participant characteristics., Results: A total of 10 046 participants were screened, of whom 3097 (31.0%) had hypertension, only 48.5% were aware of their condition and 44.4% were taking antihypertensive medication. Of those taking antihypertensive medication, 53.2% were controlled to less than 140/90 mmHg, whereas the remaining 46.8% of participants had BP of at least 140/90 mmHg suggestive of inadequately treated hypertension., Conclusion: Consecutive data obtained over a 3-year period in Australia demonstrated stagnating awareness, treatment and control rates with the latter two being substantially lower than global rates and those in other high-income countries. Concerted efforts from all stakeholders will be required to help overcome the unacceptably poor rates of BP treatment and control in Australia., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

A recent study found that only 23.8% of blood pressure (BP) devices available for purchase from Australian pharmacies were validated for accuracy. The extent to which pharmacists are aware of this, and other issues related to the accuracy of BP devices, is not known and gathering this information was the aim of this study. An online survey of Australian pharmacists was distributed via the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia between 1 October and 25 November 2020. Questions were focused on the views of pharmacists related to the accuracy of BP devices. Two hundred and ten pharmacists completed the survey. The accuracy of BP devices sold by pharmacists was considered 'quite' or 'extremely important' to most respondents (94%). However, most respondents (90%) were unaware that less than one-quarter of BP devices sold by Australian pharmacies were validated, and this was 'quite' or 'extremely surprising' to many (69%). Many respondents (64%) associated a particular brand of BP device with greater accuracy. There was low awareness on proper ways to identify accurate BP devices, such as checking reputable online databases (43%). BP devices were stocked in respondents' pharmacies based on perceived quality (50%), accuracy (40%), or as determined by the pharmacy chain (36%). In conclusion, providing accurate BP devices to consumers is important to pharmacists, but they were generally unaware that most devices available from pharmacies were not validated for accuracy. Pharmacist education, alongside advocacy for policies including regulations and strategic action, is required to ensure only validated BP devices are sold in Australia., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Professional societies, guideline writing committees, and other interested parties emphasize the importance of accurate measurement of blood pressure for clinical and public health decisions related to prevention, treatment, and follow-up of high blood pressure. Use of a clinically validated instrument to measure blood pressure is a central component of measurement accuracy and precision. Despite this, most regulatory authorities do not specify validation requirements that manufacturers must meet to sell their blood pressure measurement devices. Likewise, device validity is not a major area of focus for most consumers and healthcare providers, perhaps because they assume it is a pre-requisite for market approval. This has led to a global proliferation of non-validated blood pressure measurement devices, with only a small minority of blood pressure measurement devices having passed internationally accepted validation protocols. The clinical consequences are likely to be significant because non-validated devices are more likely to provide inaccurate estimates of blood pressure compared with validated devices. Even small inaccuracies in blood pressure measurement can result in substantial misdiagnosis and mistreatment of hypertension. There is an urgent need for clinical validation of blood pressure measurement devices prior to marketing them to consumers. There is also need for simplification of the process for consumers and healthcare providers to determine whether a blood pressure measurement device has successfully met an internationally accepted test of validity., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is critical for optimal cardiovascular risk management. Age-related trajectories for cuff-measured BP accelerate faster in women compared with men, but whether cuff BP represents the intraarterial (invasive) aortic BP is unknown. This study aimed to determine the sex differences between cuff BP, invasive aortic BP, and the difference between the 2 measurements., Methods: Upper-arm cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured during coronary angiography in 1615 subjects from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium Database. This analysis comprised 22 different cuff BP devices from 28 studies., Results: Subjects were 64±11 years (range 40-89) and 32% women. For the same cuff systolic BP (SBP), invasive aortic SBP was 4.4 mm Hg higher in women compared with men. Cuff and invasive aortic SBP were higher in women compared with men, but the sex difference was more pronounced from invasive aortic SBP, was the lowest in younger ages, and the highest in older ages. Cuff diastolic blood pressure overestimated invasive diastolic blood pressure in both sexes. For cuff and invasive diastolic blood pressure separately, there were sex*age interactions in which diastolic blood pressure was higher in younger men and lower in older men, compared with women. Cuff pulse pressure underestimated invasive aortic pulse pressure in excess of 10 mm Hg for both sexes in older age., Conclusions: For the same cuff SBP, invasive aortic SBP was higher in women compared with men. How this translates to cardiovascular risk prediction needs to be determined, but women may be at higher BP-related risk than estimated by cuff measurements.

The aim of the HEARTS in the Americas initiative is to promote the adoption of global best practices in the prevention and control of cardiovascular diseases, and improve the control of hypertension. HEARTS is being implemented in 21 countries and a diverse set of actions and measures are in progress to improve exclusive access in primary health care facilities to automated blood pressure measuring devices that have been validated for accuracy. The purpose of this manuscript is to illustrate these efforts, mainly in the regulatory and public procurement arena, and to present information on common challenges and solutions identified. Examples from six countries confirm the need for not only a robust regulatory framework to increase availability of validated automated blood pressure measuring devices but also a comprehensive strategic approach that involves relevant stakeholders, includes a multi-pronged approach and is associated with a national program to prevent and control non communicable diseases., (© 2022. Pan American Health Organization.)

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has long been deemed a disease of old men. However, in 2019 CVD accounted for 35% of all deaths in women and, therefore, remains the leading cause of death in both men and women. There is increasing evidence to show that risk factors, pathophysiology and health outcomes related to CVD differ in women compared with men, yet CVD in women remains understudied, underdiagnosed and undertreated. Differences exist between the sexes in relation to the structure of the heart and vasculature, which translate into differences in blood pressure and flow waveform physiology. These physiological differences between women and men may represent an important explanatory factor contributing to the sex disparity in CVD presentation and outcomes but remain understudied. In this review we aim to describe sex differences in arterial pressure and flow waveform physiology and explore how they may contribute to differences in CVD in women compared to men. Given that unfavourable alterations in the cardiovascular structure and function can start as early as in utero, we report sex differences in waveform physiology across the entire life course., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Cardiovascular research has therefore never been more crucial. Cardiovascular researchers must be provided with a research environment that enables them to perform at their highest level, maximizing their opportunities to work effectively with key stakeholders to address this global issue. At present, cardiovascular researchers face a range of challenges and barriers, including a decline in funding, job insecurity and a lack of diversity at senior leadership levels. Indeed, many cardiovascular researchers, particularly women, have considered leaving the sector, highlighting a crucial need to develop strategies to support and retain researchers working in the cardiovascular field. In this Roadmap article, we present solutions to problems relevant to cardiovascular researchers worldwide that are broadly classified across three key areas: capacity building, research funding and fostering diversity and equity. This Roadmap provides opportunities for research institutions, as well as governments and funding bodies, to implement changes from policy to practice, to address the most important factors restricting the career progression of cardiovascular researchers., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Objective: Accurate measurement of central blood pressure (BP) using upper arm cuff-based methods is associated with several factors, including determining the level of systolic BP (SBP) amplification. This study aimed to determine the agreement between cuff-based and invasively measured SBP amplification., Methods: Patients undergoing coronary angiography had invasive SBP amplification (brachial SBP - central SBP) measured simultaneously with cuff-based SBP amplification using a commercially available central BP device (device 1: Sphygmocor Xcel; n = 171, 70% men, 60 ± 10 years) and a now superseded model of a central BP device (device 2: Uscom BP+; n = 52, 83% men, 62 ± 10 years)., Results: Mean difference (±2SD, limits of agreement) between cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification was 4 mmHg (-12, +20 mmHg, P < 0.001) for device 1 and -2 mmHg (-14, +10 mmHg, P = 0.10) for device 2. Both devices systematically overestimated SBP amplification at lower levels and underestimated at higher levels of invasive SBP amplification, but with stronger bias for device 1 (r = -0.68 vs. r = -0.52; Z = 2.72; P = 0.008). Concordance of cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification across quartiles of invasive SBP amplification was low, particularly in the lowest and highest quartiles. The root mean square errors from regression between cuff-based central SBP and brachial SBP were significantly lower (indicating less variability) than from invasive regression models (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Irrespective of the difference from invasive measurements, cuff-based estimates of SBP amplification showed evidence of proportional systematic bias and had less individual variability. These observations could provide insights on how to improve the performance of cuff-based central BP., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that reservoir-excess pressure model parameters provide physiological and clinical insights above and beyond standard blood pressure (BP) and pulse waveform analysis. This information has never been collectively examined and was the aim of this review. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with BP as the greatest cardiovascular disease risk factor. However, brachial systolic and diastolic BP provide limited information on the underlying BP waveform, missing important BP-related cardiovascular risk. A comprehensive analysis of the BP waveform is provided by parameters derived via the reservoir-excess pressure model, which include reservoir pressure, excess pressure, and systolic and diastolic rate constants and Pinfinity. These parameters, derived from the arterial BP waveform, provide information on the underlying arterial physiology and ventricular-arterial interactions otherwise missed by conventional BP and waveform indices. Application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in the clinical setting may facilitate a better understanding and earlier identification of cardiovascular dysfunction associated with disease. Indeed, reservoir-excess pressure parameters have been associated with sub-clinical markers of end-organ damage, cardiac and vascular dysfunction, and future cardiovascular events and mortality beyond conventional risk factors. In the future, greater understanding is needed on how the underlying physiology of the reservoir-excess pressure parameters informs cardiovascular disease risk prediction over conventional BP and waveform indices. Additional consideration should be given to the application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in clinical practice using new technologies embedded into conventional BP assessment methods., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited part of Springer Nature.)

Reservoir pressure parameters (i.e., reservoir pressure [RP] and excess pressure [XSP]) independently predict cardiovascular events in adults, but this has not been investigated in children. This study aimed to determine (1) the association of reservoir pressure parameters with carotid intima-media thickness (carotid IMT), a preclinical vascular phenotype, and (2) whether a multivariable regression model with or without reservoir pressure parameters fits better for estimating carotid IMT in children. Study participants were 11-12-year-old children (n = 1231, 50% male) from the Child Health CheckPoint study, a cross-sectional substudy of the population-based Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. RP and XSP were obtained using brachial-cuff oscillometry (SphygmoCor XCEL, AtCor, Sydney). Carotid IMT was quantified by vascular ultrasonography. XSP was associated with carotid IMT after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, BMI z-score, heart rate, pubertal stage, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and mean arterial pressure (β = 0.93 µm, 95% CI 0.30-1.56 for XSP peak and β = 0.04 µm, 95% CI 0.01-0.08 for XSP integral). The results of the likelihood ratio test indicated a trend that the model with XSP and the above confounders fit better than a similar model without XSP for estimating carotid IMT. Our findings indicate that brachial-cuff device-measured XSP is associated with carotid IMT independent of conventional cardiovascular risk factors, including standard BP. This implies that a clinically convenient cuff approach could provide meaningful information for the early assessment of cardiovascular risk among children.

Introduction: Derivation of blood flow velocity from a blood pressure waveform is a novel technique, which could have potential clinical importance. Excess pressure, calculated from the blood pressure waveform via the reservoir-excess pressure model, is purported to be an analogue of blood flow velocity but this has never been examined in detail, which was the aim of this study., Methods: Intra-arterial blood pressure was measured sequentially at the brachial and radial arteries via fluid-filled catheter simultaneously with blood flow velocity waveforms recorded via Doppler ultrasound on the contralateral arm (n = 98, aged 61 ± 10 years, 72% men). Excess pressure was derived from intra-arterial blood pressure waveforms using pressure-only reservoir-excess pressure analysis., Results: Brachial and radial blood flow velocity waveform morphology were closely approximated by excess pressure derived from their respective sites of measurement (median cross-correlation coefficient r = 0.96 and r = 0.95 for brachial and radial comparisons, respectively). In frequency analyses, coherence between blood flow velocity and excess pressure was similar for brachial and radial artery comparisons (brachial and radial median coherence = 0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Brachial and radial blood flow velocity pulse heights were correlated with their respective excess pressure pulse heights (r = 0.53, P < 0.001 and r = 0.43, P < 0.001, respectively)., Conclusion: Excess pressure is an analogue of blood flow velocity, thus affording the opportunity to derive potentially important information related to arterial blood flow using only the blood pressure waveform., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55-72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as ≥130/<80 mm Hg using cuff BP compared with invasive aortic BP as the reference. The prevalence of ISH was 24% (n=407) according to cuff BP but 38% (n=642) according to invasive aortic BP. There was fair agreement (Cohen κ, 0.36) and 72% concordance between cuff and invasive aortic BP for identifying ISH. Among the 28% of subjects (n=471) with misclassification of ISH status by cuff BP, 20% (n=96) of the difference was due to lower cuff systolic BP compared with invasive aortic systolic BP (mean, -16.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.7 to -14.1]), whereas 49% (n=231) was from higher cuff diastolic BP compared with invasive aortic diastolic BP (+14.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 11.5-16.9]). In conclusion, compared with invasive BP, cuff BP fails to identify ISH in a sizeable portion of older people and demonstrates the need to improve cuff BP measurements.

Hypertension guidelines recommend that blood pressure (BP) should be measured using a monitor that has passed validation testing for accuracy. BP monitors that have not undergone rigorous validation testing can still be cleared by regulatory authorities for marketing and sale. This is the situation for most BP monitors worldwide. Thus, consumers (patients, health professionals, procurement officers, and general public) may unwittingly purchase BP monitors that are non-validated and more likely to be inaccurate. Without prior knowledge of these issues, it is extremely difficult for consumers to distinguish validated from non-validated BP monitors. For the above reasons, the aim of this paper is to provide consumers guidance on how to check whether a BP monitor has been properly validated for accuracy. The process involves making an online search of listings of BP monitors that have been assessed for validation status. Only those monitors that have been properly validated are recommended for BP measurement. There are numerous different online listings of BP monitors, several are country-specific and two are general (international) listings. Because monitors can be marketed using alternative model names in different countries, if a monitor is not found on one listing, it may be worthwhile cross-checking with a different listing. This information is widely relevant to anyone seeking to purchase a home, clinic, or ambulatory BP monitor, including individual consumers for use personally or policy makers and those procuring monitors for use in healthcare systems, and retailers looking to stock only validated BP monitors., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Australia. Investment in research solutions has been demonstrated to yield health and a 9.8-fold return economic benefit. The sector, however, is severely challenged with success rates of traditional peer-reviewed funding in decline. Here, we aimed to understand the perceived challenges faced by the cardiovascular workforce in Australia prior to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We used an online survey distributed across Australian cardiovascular societies/councils, universities and research institutes over a period of 6 months during 2019, with 548 completed responses. Inclusion criteria included being an Australian resident or an Australian citizen who lived overseas, and a current or past student or employee in the field of cardiovascular research., Results: The mean age of respondents was 42±13 years, 47% were male, 85% had a full-time position, and 40% were a group leader or laboratory head. Twenty-three per cent (23%) had permanent employment, and 82% of full-time workers regularly worked >40 hours/week. Sixty-eight per cent (68%) said they had previously considered leaving the cardiovascular research sector. If their position could not be funded in the next few years, a staggering 91% of respondents would leave the sector. Compared to PhD- and age-matched men, women were less likely to be a laboratory head and to feel they had a long-term career path as a cardiovascular researcher, while more women were unsure about future employment and had considered leaving the sector (all p<0.05). Greater job security (76%) and government and philanthropic investment in cardiovascular research (72%) were highlighted by responders as the main changes to current practices that would encourage them to stay., Conclusion: Strategic solutions, such as diversification of career pathways and funding sources, and moving from a competitive to a collaborative culture, need to be a priority to decrease reliance on government funding and allow cardiovascular researchers to thrive., (Copyright © 2020 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To present the evidence that describes what is being measured by upper-arm cuff blood pressure (BP) and the level of accuracy compared with invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Potential causes of inaccuracy and emerging methods are also discussed., Recent Findings: On average cuff systolic BP systematically underestimates invasive brachial systolic BP, although in a given individual it may substantially under- or over-estimate central aortic systolic BP. Such errors may affect individual health management outcomes and distort population level data on hypertension prevalence and control. Oscillometric cuff BP is particularly susceptible to inaccuracy in people with high arterial stiffness and with pathophysiological BP waveform shapes. Emerging cuff-less BP methods will be susceptible to inaccuracy if oscillometric cuff BP is used for calibration. The original purpose of cuff BP was to estimate central aortic BP. Recent evidence has shown substantial inaccuracy of oscillometric cuff BP exists for the measurement of invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Thus, development of more accurate BP methods, through better understanding of oscillometric and BP waveform morphology, is needed to improve health outcomes related to high BP.

Background: Blood collection and blood pressure (BP) measurements are routinely performed during the same consultation to assess absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This study aimed to determine the effect of blood collection on BP and subsequent calculation of the absolute CVD risk., Methods: Forty-five participants aged 58 ± 9 years (53% male) had systolic BP (SBP) measured using clinical guideline methods (clinic SBP). Then, on a separate visit, BP was measured immediately before, during, and after blood collection. Absolute CVD risk scores were calculated (Framingham equation) using SBP from each measurement condition and compared., Results: The prevalence of low (<10%), moderate (10-15%), and high (≥15%) absolute CVD risks among the participants was 67%, 22%, and 11%, respectively, using clinic SBP. SBP values before and during blood collection were significantly higher compared to values after blood collection (130 ± 18 and 132 ± 19 vs. 126 ± 18 mm Hg; p = 0.010 and p = 0.003, respectively). However, there were no significant differences between clinic SBP (128 ± 18 mm Hg) and blood collection SBP ( p = 0.99) or the absolute CVD risk scores (7.3 ± 6.5; 7.6 ± 5.9; 7.7 ± 6.1; and 7.1 ± 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.995 for all). The mean intraclass correlation (95% CI) indicated good agreement between absolute CVD risk scores calculated with clinic SBP and each blood collection SBP (0.86 [95% CI 0.74-0.92], 0.85 [95% CI 0.71-0.91], and 0.87 [95% CI 0.76-0.93], respectively; p < 0.001, for all)., Conclusion: Absolute CVD risk calculation is not affected by use of SBP measurements recorded at the time of blood collection. Therefore, it is acceptable to collect blood and measure BP during the same consultation for absolute CVD risk assessment., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Numerous devices purport to measure central (aortic) blood pressure (BP) as distinct from conventional brachial BP. This validation study aimed to determine the accuracy of the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device (AtCor Medical, CardieX, Sydney, Australia) for measuring central BP. 296 patients (mean age 61±12 years) undergoing coronary angiography had simultaneous measurement of invasive central BP and noninvasive cuff-derived central BP using the Xcel cuff device (total n=558 individual comparisons). A subsample (n=151) also had invasive brachial BP measured. Methods were undertaken according to the Artery Society recommendations, and several calibration techniques to derive central systolic BP (SBP) were examined. Minimum acceptable error was ≤5±≤8 mm Hg. Central SBP was significantly underestimated, and with wide variability, when using the default calibration of brachial-cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP; mean difference±SD, -7.7±11.0 mm Hg). Similar variability was observed using other calibration methods (cuff 33% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, -4.4±11.5 mm Hg; cuff 40% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, 4.7±11.9 mm Hg; cuff oscillometric mean arterial pressure and DBP, -18.2±12.1 mm Hg). Only calibration with invasive central integrated mean arterial pressure and DBP was within minimal acceptable error (3.3±7.5 mm Hg). The difference between brachial-cuff SBP and invasive central SBP was 3.3±10.7 mm Hg. A subsample analysis to determine the accuracy of central-to-brachial SBP amplification showed this to be overestimated by the Xcel cuff device (mean difference 4.3±9.1 mm Hg, P =0.02). Irrespective of cuff calibration technique, the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device does not meet the Artery Society accuracy criteria for noninvasive measurement of central BP.

Self-home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended to guide clinical decisions on hypertension and is used worldwide for cardiovascular risk management. People usually make their own decisions when purchasing BP devices, which can be made online. If patients purchase nonvalidated devices (those not proven accurate according to internationally accepted standards), hypertension management may be based on inaccurate readings resulting in under- or over-diagnosis or treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the number, type, percentage validated, and cost of home BP devices available online. A search of online businesses selling devices for home BP monitoring was conducted. Multinational companies make worldwide deliveries, so searches were restricted to BP devices available for one nation (Australia) as an example of device availability through the global online marketplace. Validation status of BP devices was determined according to established protocols. Fifty nine online businesses, selling 972 unique BP devices were identified. These included 278 upper-arm cuff devices (18.3% validated), 162 wrist-cuff devices (8.0% validated), and 532 wrist-band wearables (0% validated). Most BP devices (92.4%) were stocked by international e-commerce businesses (eg, eBay, Amazon), but only 5.5% were validated. Validated cuff BP devices were more expensive than nonvalidated devices: median (interquartile range) of 101.1 (75.0-151.5) versus 67.4 (30.4-112.8) Australian Dollars. Nonvalidated BP devices dominate the online marketplace and are sold at lower cost than validated ones, which is a major barrier to accurate home BP monitoring and cardiovascular risk management. Before purchasing a BP device, people should check it has been validated at https://www.stridebp.org.

Objectives: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.

Background: Central artery reservoir-excess pressure parameters are clinically important but impractical to record directly. However, diastolic waveform morphology is consistent across central and peripheral arteries. Therefore, peripheral artery reservoir-excess pressure parameters related to diastolic waveform morphology may be representative of central parameters and share clinically important associations with end-organ damage. This has never been determined and was the aim of this study., Methods: Intra-arterial blood pressure (BP) waveforms were measured sequentially at the aorta, brachial, and radial arteries among 220 individuals (aged 61 ± 10 years, 68% male). Customized software was used to derive reservoir-excess pressure parameters at each arterial site (reservoir and excess pressure, systolic and diastolic rate constants) and clinical relevance was determined by association with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)., Results: Between the aorta and brachial artery, the mean difference in the diastolic rate constant and reservoir pressure integral was -0.162 S-1 (P = 0.08) and -0.772 mm Hg s (P = 0.23), respectively. The diastolic rate constant had the strongest and most consistent associations with eGFR across aortic and brachial sites (β = -0.20, P = 0.02; β = -0.20, P = 0.03, respectively; adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors). Aortic, but not brachial peak reservoir pressure was associated with eGFR in adjusted models (aortic β = -0.48, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: The diastolic rate constant is the most consistent reservoir-excess pressure parameter, in both its absolute values and associations with kidney dysfunction, when derived from the aorta and brachial artery. Thus, the diastolic rate constant could be utilized in the clinical setting to improve BP risk stratification., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2020. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64±11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP ( P <0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age ( P <0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age ( P <0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP.

Manual measurement of blood pressure (BP) during exercise testing is the recommended standard. Automated measurement of BP is an alternative method used during clinical exercise testing, but there is little data comparing manual and automated BP in this setting. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between manual and automated BP during a standard clinical treadmill exercise test. 416 participants (66 ± 5 years; 54% male) completed a Bruce treadmill exercise test at baseline or follow-up within a clinical trial of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Manual and automated BP were measured simultaneously at each exercise test stage. Manual BP was measured by a technician blinded to automated BP values (Tango+, Suntech). Concordance between manual and automated BP was assessed using mean differences and intraclass correlations (ICC). Concordance between manual and automated BP across all exercise stages was excellent for systolic BP (overall mean difference: 3 ± 11 mm Hg, P = .598; ICC = 0.964 [95% CI 0.942-0.977] and pulse pressure (overall mean difference: 2 ± 14 mm Hg, P = .595; ICC = 0.934 [95% CI 0.899-0.956]). Concordance between manual and automated diastolic BP across all exercise stages was moderate-to-good (overall mean difference: 1 ± 9 mm Hg, P = .905; ICC = 0.784 [95% CI 0.672-0.858]). Automated BP using the Tango + device is concordant with manual BP during early stages of a standard clinical exercise test. Thus, this automated method may be a suitable alternative to manual measurement of BP during clinical exercise testing., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Structural and functional dysfunction in both the macro- and microvasculature are a feature of essential hypertension. In a healthy cardiovascular system, the elastic properties of the large arteries ensure that pulsations in pressure and flow generated by cyclic left ventricular contraction are dampened, so that less pulsatile pressure and flow are delivered at the microvascular level. However, in response to aging, hypertension, and other disease states, arterial stiffening limits the buffering capacity of the elastic arteries, thus exposing the microvasculature to increased pulsatile stress. This is thought to be particularly pertinent to high flow/low resistance organs such as the brain and kidney, which may be sensitive to excess pressure and flow pulsatility, damaging capillary networks, and resulting in target organ damage. In this review, we describe the clinical relevance of the pulsatile interaction between the macro- and microvasculature and summarize current methods for measuring the transmission of pulsatility between the two sites., (Copyright © 2019 Climie, Gallo, Picone, Di Lascio, van Sloten, Guala, Mayer, Hametner and Bruno.)

Radial intra-arterial blood pressure (BP) is sometimes used as the reference standard for validation of brachial cuff BP devices. Moreover, there is an emerging wearables market seeking to measure BP at the wrist. However, radial systolic BP may differ when compared with brachial; yet some authors have labeled these differences as a fictional Popeye phenomenon. Indeed, differences between brachial and radial systolic BP have never been accurately quantified, and this was the aim of this study. Intra-arterial BP was measured consecutively at the brachial and radial artery in 180 participants undergoing coronary angiography (aged 61±10 years; 69% men). On average, radial systolic BP was 5.5 mm Hg higher than brachial systolic BP. Only 43% of participants had radial systolic BP within ±5 mm Hg of brachial. Additionally, 46%, 19%, and 13% of participants had radial systolic BP >5, between 5 and 10, and between 10 and 15 mm Hg higher than brachial respectively. A further 14% of participants had radial systolic BP >15 mm Hg higher than brachial, representing the so-called Popeye phenomenon. Finally, 11% of participants had radial systolic BP >5 mm Hg lower than brachial. In conclusion, radial systolic BP is not representative of brachial systolic BP, with most participants having a radial systolic BP >5 mm Hg higher than brachial and many with differences >15 mm Hg. Therefore, validation testing of BP devices utilizing intra-arterial BP as the reference standard should use intra-arterial BP measured at the same site as the brachial cuff or wearable device.

Aortic stiffness predicts cardiovascular mortality but is limited as a risk marker because it is dependent on blood pressure (BP). A potential solution is provided from the ratio of aortic-to-brachial artery stiffness (ab-ratio), which has been shown to be a BP-independent risk marker among patients with renal dysfunction (RD). We sought to determine the BP independence of the ab-ratio in patients with disease, including RD, and healthy populations. The ab-ratio (aortic/brachial pulse wave velocity) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded in patients with RD (n = 119, aged 65 ± 7 years), hypertension (n = 140, aged 62 ± 9 years), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 77, aged 60 ± 9 years) and healthy subjects (n = 99, aged 51 ± 8 years). Multiple-regression analysis was performed to test the independent association of MAP with the ab-ratio adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, glucose and heart rate. There was no significant relationship between the ab-ratio and MAP in patients with RD (β = 0.08, p = 0.34), hypertension (β = 0.04, p = 0.62) or diabetes (β = 0.22, p = 0.11). However, among healthy subjects the ab-ratio was significantly and independently associated with MAP (β = 0.31, p = 0.003). There was a significant difference in the strength of association between the ab-ratio and MAP between patients with disease and healthy subjects (z > 2.2, p < 0.05 all). Although ab-ratio is purported to be a risk marker that is independent of BP, this was observed only among patient populations, and not among healthy subjects. As a result, the ab-ratio has limited potential as a screening tool for the clinical assessment of arterial stiffness in otherwise healthy individuals.

Objective: Estimation of aortic blood pressure (BP) requires peripheral BP waveform calibration. Mean arterial pressure (MAP)/DBP calibration is purported to estimate aortic BP more accurately than SBP/DBP calibration. However, this is based on inaccurate cuff calibration. Thus, direct comparisons of each calibration method using intra-arterial BP are required to confirm this, and was the aim of this study., Methods: Ascending aortic, brachial and radial artery intra-arterial BPs were measured among 107 patients (61.9 ± 10.0 years, 70% men) undergoing coronary angiography. Radial waveforms were calibrated with brachial SBP/DBP and brachial MAP/DBP to directly test the accuracy of estimated aortic SBP (derived using a commercial device) from each calibration compared with intra-arterial aortic SBP. Estimated aortic BP accuracy from aortic MAP/DBP, brachial and radial SBP/DBP calibrations of peripheral waveforms was also tested (six calibration methods in total; all using intra-arterial BP)., Results: Estimated aortic SBP from brachial MAP/DBP calibration of radial waveforms had a significantly smaller mean difference than from brachial SBP/DBP calibration (-0.7 ± 7.5 mmHg versus -6.9 ± 7.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001 for difference). Of the other calibration methods, estimated aortic SBP was most accurate from aortic MAP/DBP calibration of radial waveforms (-1.8 ± 5.0 mmHg, P = 0.00023). However, for all calibration methods, aortic-to-brachial artery and/or brachial-to-radial artery SBP amplification had a major influence on estimated aortic SBP., Conclusion: Brachial and aortic MAP/DBP were confirmed as the best calibration methods to estimate aortic SBP, but irrespective of calibration method, accuracy was significantly influenced by the level of SBP amplification. Thus, improved accuracy of estimated aortic SBP should be possible by closer consideration of SBP amplification or individual waveform characteristics that differ according to the level of SBP amplification.