• Hypertension · May 2015

    Comparative Study

    Central aortic blood pressure from ultrasound wall-tracking of the carotid artery in children: comparison with invasive measurements and radial tonometry.

    • Laura Milne, Louise Keehn, Antoine Guilcher, John F Reidy, Narayan Karunanithy, Eric Rosenthal, Shakeel Qureshi, Phil J Chowienczyk, and Manish D Sinha.
    • From the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, King's College London, British Heart Foundation Centre, United Kingdom (L.M., L.K., A.G., P.J.C., M.D.S.); and Departments of Interventional Radiology (J.F.R., N.K.), Paediatric Cardiology (E.R., S.Q.), and Paediatric Nephrology (M.D.S.), Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
    • Hypertension. 2015 May 1; 65 (5): 1141-6.

    AbstractDifferences between central aortic root (c) and peripheral (p) systolic blood pressure (SBP) may be particularly marked in children, but noninvasive methods for assessing cSBP in children have not been validated. We compared estimates of cSBP obtained from radiofrequency ultrasound wall tracking of the carotid artery (ART.LAB system) with that measured directly by a catheter in the aortic root at the time of arterial cannulation. Carotid waveforms were calibrated from invasive measurements of mean and diastolic pressures. In 9 children aged 10.5 ± 5.0 years (mean ± SD), cSBP obtained from carotid wall tracking was highly correlated with invasive measures of cSBP (r=0.99) with mean (± SD) difference 3.9 ± 2.5 mm Hg. Second, we compared values of cSBP obtained from the carotid with those obtained using noninvasive applanation tonometry at the radial artery and a radial-to-aortic transfer function (SphygmoCor). Both carotid and radial tonometric measurements were calibrated from the same peripheral mean and diastolic measurements of blood pressure obtained by sphygmomanometry. In 84 children aged 13.2 ± 3.2 years, there was excellent agreement between the 2 methods (r=0.95; P<0.001) with mean difference 0.71 ± 3.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval =-1.53 to 1.01). This invasive validation study confirms that cSBP as estimated by carotid wall tracking provides an acceptable measurement of true cSBP when calibration is from true mean and diastolic pressures. Close agreement of cSBP obtained by carotid wall tracking and radial tonometry suggests that these provide similar results when calibrated from the same peripheral blood pressure measurements.© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…