Interarm Differences in Brachial Blood Pressure and their Effect on the Derivation on Central Aortic Blood Pressure

被引:1
|
作者
Peebles, Karen C. [1 ]
Tan, Isabella [2 ]
Cook, Mitchell T. D. [1 ]
Theobald, Davis A. [1 ]
Avolio, Alberto P. [1 ]
Butlin, Mark [2 ]
机构
[1] Macquarie Univ, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth Profess, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Macquarie Univ, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Biomed Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
Interarm blood pressure differences; blood pressure monitoring; cardiovascular disease; aortic blood pressure; ARM DIFFERENCES; PRIMARY-CARE; VASCULAR-DISEASE; HYPERTENSION; PREVALENCE; RECOMMENDATIONS; MORTALITY; AWARENESS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.2991/artres.k.200201.002
中图分类号
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
Background: Inter-arm differences in brachial systolic Blood Pressure (BP) are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. It is unclear whether anatomical factors contribute to brachial Interarm Blood Pressure (IABP) differences or whether brachial IABP differences translate to differences in derived central aortic BP. This study aimed to ascertain whether IABP differences in brachial BP correlate with anatomical factors (arm side, dominance, and geometry) and translate to differences in derived central BP. Methods: Brachial BP and derived central BP were measured simultaneously in both arms in 77 community-dwelling adults (18-66 years, 38 male) using two SphygmoCor XCEL (AtCor Medical) BP devices. Measurements were taken 3-4 times in each participant, swapping devices between measurements. An optoelectronic volumeter (Perometer 350S) and hand-held dynamometer (Saehan) were used to measure arm volume and maximal hand-grip strength. Differences in brachial and derived central BP between arms were evaluated by paired t-tests. Regression analysis was used to examine predictors of IABP differences. Results: Absolute IABP difference in brachial systolic BP was 4.2 +/- 3.6 mmHg. Brachial systolic IABP differences were not different between arms (right/left, dominant/non-dominant, or large/small arm volume). Brachial systolic IABP differences were not correlated with differences in arm volume or grip strength. Male sex and diastolic BP were the only predictors. Brachial systolic IABP difference translated to a small (3.1 +/- 2.4 mmHg) difference in derived central BP. Conclusion: As there is only a single aortic BP, we consider the difference in derived central BP likely an artefact. The possibility that it results from BP variability warrants further investigation. (C) 2020 Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology. Publishing services by Atlantis Press International B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:89 / 96
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Interarm Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Difference Is Diversely Associated With Cerebral Atherosclerosis in Noncardioembolic Stroke Patients
    Chang, Yoonkyung
    Choi, Gyeong Seon
    Lim, Soo Mee
    Kim, Yong-Jae
    Song, Tae-Jin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2018, 31 (01) : 35 - 42
  • [22] Ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes and isolated elevation of office central or brachial blood pressure
    Feitosa, Audes D. M.
    Paiva, Annelise M. G.
    Mota-Gomes, Marco A.
    Brandao, Andrea A.
    Sposito, Andrei C.
    Nadruz Jr, Wilson
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, 2020, 22 (10) : 1936 - 1940
  • [23] Evaluation of interarm blood pressure differences using the Microlife WatchBP Office in a clinical setting
    Krogager, Christoffer
    Laugesen, Esben
    Rossen, Niklas B.
    Poulsen, Per L.
    Erlandsen, Mogens
    Hansen, Klavs W.
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2017, 22 (03) : 161 - 165
  • [24] Interarm blood pressure differences predict target organ damage in type 2 diabetes
    Spannella, Francesco
    Giulietti, Federico
    Fedecostante, Massimiliano
    Ricci, Maddalena
    Balietti, Paolo
    Cocci, Guido
    Landi, Laura
    Bonfigli, Anna Rita
    Boemi, Massimo
    Espinosa, Emma
    Sarzani, Riccardo
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, 2017, 19 (05) : 472 - 478
  • [25] Novel Description of the 24-Hour Circadian Rhythms of Brachial Versus Central Aortic Blood Pressure and the Impact of Blood Pressure Treatment in a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial The Ambulatory Central Aortic Pressure (AmCAP) Study
    Williams, Bryan
    Lacy, Peter S.
    Baschiera, Fabio
    Brunel, Patrick
    Duesing, Rainer
    HYPERTENSION, 2013, 61 (06) : 1168 - +
  • [26] Risk Stratification by Cross-Classification of Central and Brachial Systolic Blood Pressure
    Cheng, Yi-Bang
    Thijs, Lutgarde
    Aparicio, Lucas S.
    Huang, Qi-Fang
    Wei, Fang-Fei
    Yu, Yu-Ling
    Barochiner, Jessica
    Sheng, Chang-Sheng
    Yang, Wen-Yi
    Niiranen, Teemu J.
    Boggia, Jose
    Zhang, Zhen-Yu
    Stolarz-Skrzypek, Katarzyna
    Gilis-Malinowska, Natasza
    Tikhonoff, Valerie
    Wojciechowska, Wiktoria
    Casiglia, Edoardo
    Narkiewicz, Krzysztof
    Filipovsky, Jan
    Kawecka-Jaszcz, Kalina
    Wang, Ji-Guang
    Li, Yan
    Staessen, Jan A.
    HYPERTENSION, 2022, 79 (05) : 1101 - 1111
  • [27] Evaluation of a novel sphygmomanometer, which estimates central aortic blood pressure from analysis of brachial artery suprasystolic pressure waves
    Lin, Aaron C. W.
    Lowe, Andrew
    Sidhu, Karishma
    Harrison, Wil
    Ruygrok, Peter
    Stewart, Ralph
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2012, 30 (09) : 1743 - 1750
  • [28] Central systolic blood pressure increases with aortic stiffness
    Bulas, J.
    Potocarova, M.
    Kupcova, V
    Gaspar, L.
    Wimmer, G.
    Murin, J.
    BRATISLAVA MEDICAL JOURNAL-BRATISLAVSKE LEKARSKE LISTY, 2019, 120 (12): : 894 - 898
  • [29] Aortic-to-brachial artery stiffness gradient is not blood pressure independent
    Armstrong, Matthew K.
    Schultz, Martin G.
    Picone, Dean S.
    Sharman, James E.
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION, 2019, 33 (05) : 385 - 392
  • [30] Comparison of Brachial Blood Pressure and Central Blood Pressure in Attended, Unattended, and Unattended Standing Situations
    Mizuno, Hiroyuki
    Hoshide, Satoshi
    Yano, Yuichiro
    Nozue, Ryoko
    Kario, Kazuomi
    HYPERTENSION RESEARCH, 2021, 44 (10) : 1283 - 1290