SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2021
A systematic review of invasive, high-fidelity pressure studies documenting the amplification of blood pressure from the aorta to the brachial and radial arteries.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Value and Variability of Pulse Shape Indicator for Estimating Mean Arterial Pressure in the Radial and Femoral Arteries.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Non-Invasive Estimation of Central Systolic Blood Pressure by Radial Tonometry: A Simplified Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- What is new in hemodynamic monitoring and management?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Review
- New Method to Estimate Central Systolic Blood Pressure From Peripheral Pressure: A Proof of Concept and Validation Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is commonly accepted that systolic blood pressure (SBP) is significantly higher in the brachial/radial artery than in the aorta while mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) pressures remain unchanged. This may have implications for outcome studies and for non-invasive devices calibration. We performed a systematic review of invasive high-fidelity pressure studies documenting BP in the aorta and brachial/radial artery. We selected articles published prior to July 2015. Pressure amplification (Amp = peripheral minus central pressure) was calculated (weighted mean). The six studies retained (n = 294, 76.5% male, mean age 63.5 years) mainly involved patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). In two studies at the aortic/brachial level (n = 64), MBP and DBP were unchanged (MPAmp = 0.1 mmHg, DPAmp = -1.3 mmHg), while SBP increased (SPAmp = 4.2 mmHg; relative amplification = 3.1%). In four studies in which MBP was not documented (n = 230), brachial DBP remained unchanged and SBP increased (SPAmp = 6.6 mmHg; 4.9%). One of these four studies also reported radial SBP and DBP, not MBP (n = 12). Few high-fidelity pressure studies were found, and they have been performed mainly in elderly male patients with suspected CAD. Counter to expectations, the mean amplification of SBP from the aorta to brachial artery was < 5%. Further studies on SPAmp phenotypes (positive, null, negative) are advocated. Non-invasive device calibration assumptions were confirmed, namely unchanged MBP and DBP from the aorta to the brachial artery. Data did not allow for firm conclusions on the amount of BP changes from the aorta to the radial artery, and from the aorta to the brachial/radial arteries in other populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.