These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mean arterial pressure values calculated using seven different methods and their associations with target organ deterioration in a single-center study of 1878 individuals.
    Author: Papaioannou TG, Protogerou AD, Vrachatis D, Konstantonis G, Aissopou E, Argyris A, Nasothimiou E, Gialafos EJ, Karamanou M, Tousoulis D, Sfikakis PP.
    Journal: Hypertens Res; 2016 Sep; 39(9):640-7. PubMed ID: 27194570.
    Abstract:
    To assess the differences among seven different methods for the calculation of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and to identify the formula that provides MAP values that are more closely associated with target organ deterioration as expressed by the carotid cross-sectional area (CSA), carotid-to-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cf-PWV) and left ventricular mass (LVM). The study population consisted of 1878 subjects who underwent noninvasive cardiovascular risk assessment. Blood pressure (BP) was assessed in all subjects, and MAP was calculated by direct oscillometry and six different formulas. Carotid artery ultrasound imaging was performed in 1628 subjects. The CSA of the right and left common carotid artery (CCA) were calculated and used as surrogates of arterial wall mass and hypertrophy. Aortic stiffness was evaluated in 1763 subjects by measuring the cf-PWV. Finally, 218 subjects underwent echocardiographic examination for the assessment of LVM. Among the examined methods of MAP calculation, the formula MAP1=[diastolic BP]+0.412 × [pulse pressure] yielded the strongest correlations with the LVM, cf-PWV and CSA of the right and left CCA, even after adjusting for age and gender. The MAP calculation using the 0.412 was superior compared with the traditional formula that uses the 0.33 for the discrimination of subjects with left ventricular and carotid wall hypertrophy, as well as subjects with increased aortic stiffness. MAP estimated with the 0.412 is better correlated with target organ deterioration compared with other formulas. Future studies are needed to explore the accuracy of these formulas for MAP estimation compared with direct intra-arterial BP measurement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]