Measurement accuracy of non-invasively obtained central blood pressure by applanation tonometry: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: International journal of cardiology Vol. 167; no. 5; pp. 1867 - 1876
• Main Authors: Cheng, Hao-Min, Lang, Dora, Tufanaru, Catalin, Pearson, Alan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Shannon Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.09.2013; Elsevier
• Subjects: Applanation tonometry; Biological and medical sciences; Blood Pressure - physiology; Blood Pressure Determination - methods; Blood Pressure Determination - standards; Calibration - standards; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular; Central blood pressure; Heart; Humans; Late systolic peak; Manometry - methods; Manometry - standards; Medical sciences; SphygmoCor; Sphygmomanometer; Transfer function; SphygmoCor; Late systolic peak; Central blood pressure; Transfer function; Sphygmomanometer; Applanation tonometry; Late; Cardiovascular disease; Systematic review; Sphygmomanometry; Metaanalysis; Arterial pressure; Peak; Blood pressure; Hemodynamics; Measurement accuracy; Cardiology
• ISSN: 0167-5273; 1874-1754; 1874-1754
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.04.155

Non-invasive methods based on applanation tonometry have been proposed to estimate central blood pressure. However, the accuracy of these methods hasn't been systematically examined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing estimated and invasively measured central BP. Sufficient data were available in 22 studies for meta-analysis (857 subjects and 1167 measurements). Acquired arterial pressure waveforms in these studies were directly measured, calibrated to match invasive aortic mean BP and diastolic BP or calibrated to match brachial BP measured with a sphygmomanometer, cuff BP. Of the former 2 conditions, the errors of estimated central BP were small with a mean and standard deviation of difference −1.1±4.1mm Hg (95% limits of agreement −9.1–6.9mm Hg) for central systolic BP; −0.5±2.1mm Hg (−4.6–3.6mm Hg) for central diastolic BP; and −0.8±5.1mm Hg (−10.8–9.2mm Hg) for central pulse pressure. However, the errors inflated to −8.2±10.3mm Hg (−28.4–12.0mm Hg) for central systolic BP, 7.6±8.7mm Hg (−9.5–24.6mm Hg) for central diastolic BP, and −12.2±10.4mm Hg (−32.5–8.1mm Hg) for central pulse pressure, when calibrated to cuff BP. The findings were still evident in subgroup analysis conducted with different central BP estimating methods and validated cuff BP monitors. Present tonometry-based central BP estimating methods are acceptable in theory, with small errors. However, based on current available evidence, there is substantial room for improvement in measurement accuracy of central BP when cuff BP is used to calibrate the peripheral waveforms.