Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Central blood pressure estimation for the masses moves a step closer

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 24, pages 495–497 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

The sphygmomanometer is one of the few medical devices that can be truly said to have stood the test of time. This is in part testament to its simplicity and ease of use, but also that 100 years of careful epidemiological observation and large-scale intervention trials have placed the predictive value of brachial blood pressure beyond question. Despite this, over the last 30 years a few visionaries, or ‘heretics’, depending on one's viewpoint,1, 2 have fought for greater recognition of the potential clinical importance of aortic (central) pressure. Their rationale stemmed from the observation, first made at the time of invasive cardiac catheterization, that aortic and brachial systolic pressures vary considerably,3 and, more recently, that surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk are better related to central systolic pressure than the corresponding brachial artery values.4, 5 Since then, evidence has accrued that central pressure may actually be an independent predictor of future cardiovascular risk, supporting the visionaries.5 However, central pressure measurement and its use in risk stratification are yet to enter the clinical arena for two main reasons:

  1. 1)

    The epidemiological data concerning risk prediction and central pressure are vastly inferior to those for brachial artery pressure and no study has yet demonstrated that treatment based on central rather than peripheral pressure is better.

  2. 2)

    Until recently, most of the techniques for estimating central pressure, although non-invasive, have required some training and skill and were thus ill suited for routine clinical use or large-scale clinical trials.

It is against this backdrop that Wassertheurer et al. present their validation of a novel device for assessing central aortic pressure from pressure waveforms recorded at the brachial artery with a standard blood pressure cuff.

The epidemiological data concerning risk prediction and central pressure are vastly inferior to those for brachial artery pressure and no study has yet demonstrated that treatment based on central rather than peripheral pressure is better.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM, Cockcroft JR . Pulse waveform analysis and arterial stiffness: realism can replace evangelism and scepticism. J Hypertens 2005; 23: 213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams B . Pulse wave analysis and hypertension: evangelism versus scepticism. J Hypertens 2004; 22: 447–449.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rowell LB, Brengelmann GL, Blackmon JR, Bruce RA, Murray JA . Disparities between aortic and peripheral pulse pressures induced by upright exercise and vasomotor changes in man. Circulation 1968; 37: 954–964.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Laurent S, Cockcroft J, Van BL, Boutouyrie P, Giannattasio C, Hayoz D et al. Expert consensus document on arterial stiffness: methodological issues and clinical applications. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 2588–2605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Agabiti-Rosei E, Mancia G, O’Rourke MF, Roman MJ, Safar ME, Smulyan H et al. Central blood pressure measurements and antihypertensive therapy. A consensus document. Hypertension 2007; 50: 154–160.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wassertheurer S, Kropf J, Weber T, van der GM, Baulmann J, Ammer M et al. A new oscillometric method for pulse wave analysis: comparison with a common tonometric method. J Hum Hypertens 2010 24: 498–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pauca AL, Wallenhaupt ST, Kon ND, Tucker WY . Does radial artery pressure accurately reflect aortic pressure? Chest 1992; 102: 1193–1198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McEniery CM, Yasmin, McDonnell B, Munnery M, Wallace SM, Rowe CV et al. Central pressure: variability and impact of cardiovascular risk factors. The Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial II. Hypertension 2008; 51: 1476–1482.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharman J, Stowasser M, Fassett R, Marwick T, Franklin S . Central blood pressure measurement may improve risk stratification. J Hum Hypertens 2008; 22: 838–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Kizer JR, Lee ET, Galloway JM, Ali T et al. Central pressure more strongly relates to vascular disease and outcome than does brachial pressure: the Strong Heart Study. Hypertension 2007; 50: 197–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Roman MJ, Okin PM, Kizer JR, Lee ET, Howard BV, Devereux RB . Relations of central and brachial blood pressure to left ventricular hypertrophy and geometry: the Strong Heart Study. J Hypertens 2010; 28: 384–388.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shrestha I, Takahashi T, Nomura E, Ohtsuki T, Ohshita T, Ueno H et al. Association between central systolic blood pressure, white matter lesions in cerebral MRI and carotid atherosclerosis. Hypertens Res 2009; 32: 869–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM, Cockcroft JR . Atenolol and cardiovascular risk: an issue close to the heart. Lancet 2006; 367: 627–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vlachopoulos C, Aznaouridis K, O’Rourke MF, Safar ME, Baou K, Stefanadis C . Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2010 (e-pub ahead of print; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pauca AL, O’Rourke MF, Kon ND . Prospective evaluation of a method for estimating ascending aortic pressure from the radial artery pressure waveform. Hypertension 2001; 38: 932–937.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharman JE, Lim R, Qasem AM, Coombes JS, Burgess MI, Franco J et al. Validation of a generalized transfer function to noninvasively derive central blood pressure during exercise. Hypertension 2006; 47: 1203–1208.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM, Schillaci G, Boutouyrie P, Segers P, Donald A et al. ARTERY society guidelines for validation of non-invasive haemodynamic measurement devices: part 1, arterial pulse wave velocity. Artery Res 2010 (in press).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacology Unit, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK

    I B Wilkinson & C M McEniery

  2. Department of Cardiology, Wales Heart Research Institute, Cardiff, UK

    J R Cockcroft

Authors
  1. I B Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C M McEniery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J R Cockcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I B Wilkinson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilkinson, I., McEniery, C. & Cockcroft, J. Central blood pressure estimation for the masses moves a step closer. J Hum Hypertens 24, 495–497 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2010.47

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2010.47

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links