Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012 Sep;14(9):575-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2012.00682.x. Epub 2012 Jul 9.

Comparison of two noninvasive devices for measurement of central systolic blood pressure with invasive measurement during cardiac catheterization.

Author information

  • 1Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.


Recently, a new device for noninvasive assessment of central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) (BPro device with A-Pulse) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, but available data are limited. In 52 patients undergoing invasive elective cardiac evaluation, central hemodynamics were measured invasively. Immediately thereafter, radial artery waveforms were sampled by two noninvasive techniques, the BPro and, as a comparator, the SphygmoCor System. Then, central hemodynamics were measured invasively for a second time. The invasively recorded cSBP (137 ± 27 mm Hg) did not differ with both noninvasively assessed cSBP by BPro (136 ± 21 mm Hg, P = .627 vs invasive cSBP) and by SphygmoCor (136 ± 23 mm Hg, P=.694 vs invasive cSBP) and correlated highly between invasively recorded and both noninvasively assessed cSBP. However, using Bland-Altman plots, spreading of compared data of both devices can be found (BPro: 0.87 ± 13 mm Hg vs invasive cSBP; SphygmoCor: 0.77 ± 14 mm Hg vs invasive cSBP). There was an excellent correlation of both noninvasive devices for the calculation of cSBP (r=0.961, P<.001). cSBP differed by only 0.1 ± 6 mm Hg (P=.913) between the two noninvasive devices. Therefore, both noninvasive devices showed an accurate agreement in cSBP compared with invasively measured cSBP.

© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Blackwell Publishing
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk