A generalized arterial transfer function derived at rest underestimates augmentation of central pressure after exercise

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral exercise blood pressure and resting central blood pressure are considered more relevant to cardiovascular health than resting peripheral blood pressure. Central exercise blood pressure may well be an even more useful measure, but there is no simple non-invasive means of determining it. The aim of the present study was to establish whether the estimation of central blood pressure from peripheral blood pressure using a transfer function derived at rest, would hold after aerobic exercise. METHODS: Thirty healthy young men were studied before and immediately (< 1 min) and 10 min after 15 min bicycle exercise at 65-70% of maximum heart rate. Simultaneous carotid and radial artery waveforms were recorded, and radial-to-carotid generalized transfer functions (GTF) were calculated using Fourier analysis for rest and immediately postexercise. Central systolic blood pressure (SBP) and augmentation index (AIx) were calculated for measured and derived waves. RESULTS: The resting GTF underestimated central SBP and AIx immediately (-5.8 +/- 2.1 mmHg, P = 0.01; -8.3 +/- 2.9%, P = 0.008) and 10 min after (-2.0 +/- 0.7 mmHg, P = 0.008; -7.0 +/- 2.1%, P = 0.003) exercise. No significant bias was found between measured and derived (using resting GTF) carotid values at rest. The use of an exercise-specific GTF resulted in no specific bias immediately or 10 min after exercise, although it overestimated blood pressure and AIx at rest (2.5 +/- 1.0 mmHg, P = 0.02; 11.3 +/- 3.0%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: A peripheral-to-central arterial GTF derived at rest significantly underestimates key measures of central arterial pressure immediately after exercise, and pressure estimations may be improved by the use of an exercise-specific GTF.     

Use of generalized transfer function-derived central blood pressure for the calculation of baroreflex gain

BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood pressure measurement underestimates pressure changes during baroreflex testing, resulting in an overestimation of baroreflex gain. This error might be reduced by measuring central blood pressure; the invasive measurement, however, may represent ethical and practical problems. The solution may be the derivation of central blood pressure from the peripheral pulse using a generalized transfer function. METHODS: In the current study, we tested the agreement between catheter-measured and generalized transfer function derived central blood pressure measurements and corresponding baroreflex gains. ECG and blood pressure waveforms were monitored continuously during a phenylephrine-induced pressure rise in 22 subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization. Pressure was measured with a catheter positioned in the aorta and with applanation tonometry in the radial artery. Radial pressure waveforms were subject to a generalized transfer function built in the SphygmoCor device to derive central pressure waveforms. Radial tonometric signal was calibrated with catheter-measured (invasive) and sphygmomanometric (noninvasive) pressures. Baroreflex gains were calculated from the linear regressions between heart period and systolic pressure changes. RESULTS: When radial tonometric signal was calibrated invasively, there was no group difference between baroreflex gains calculated from SphygmoCor-derived and catheter-measured pressures (8.2 +/- 1.2 vs. 7.2 +/- 1.2 ms/mmHg, P = NS). When radial tonometric signal was calibrated noninvasively, however, baroreflex gains calculated from SphygmoCor-derived pressures overestimated those calculated from catheter-measured pressures. CONCLUSION: Using a generalized transfer function is an accurate method to derive central pressure changes for baroreflex gain calculation. The technique, however, requires invasive pressure measurements for calibration, leaving the problem of a fully noninvasive central pressure measurement unresolved.     

Relation of blood pressure during exercise to anaerobic metabolism

To determine the effects of anaerobic metabolism on blood pressure (BP), 25 subjects were studied for BP response to graded and continuous leg-crank ergometry under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Measurements obtained during exercise also included ventilatory equivalents for oxygen and carbon dioxide to determine anaerobic threshold. Systolic and diastolic BP responses to exercise before anaerobic threshold were compared with responses after anaerobic threshold by linear regression analyses. The systolic BP response to graded exercise was significantly accelerated (p less than 0.01) after anaerobic threshold, demonstrating a nonlinear response to proportionately graded exercise demand. Comparison of the slopes or rates of change in diastolic BP before and after anaerobic threshold also indicated a significant difference (p less than 0.01) under these 2 different metabolic conditions. It is concluded that in contrast to the linear response of BP under conditions of aerobic metabolism, BP responds nonlinearly during anaerobic metabolism.     

Validation of a brachial cuff-based method for estimating central systolic blood pressure

The prognostic value of central systolic blood pressure has been established recently. At present, its noninvasive assessment is limited by the need of dedicated equipment and trained operators. Moreover, ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring of central pressures are not feasible. An algorithm enabling conventional automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors to assess central systolic pressure could be of value. We compared central systolic pressure, calculated with a transfer-function like method (ARCSolver algorithm), using waveforms recorded with a regular oscillometric cuff suitable for ambulatory measurements, with simultaneous high-fidelity invasive recordings, and with noninvasive estimations using a validated device, operating with radial tonometry and a generalized transfer function. Both studies revealed a good agreement between the oscillometric cuff-based central systolic pressure and the comparator. In the invasive study, composed of 30 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolver-based and invasive central systolic pressures was 3.0 mm Hg (SD: 6.0 mm Hg) with invasive calibration of brachial waveforms and -3.0 mm Hg (SD: 9.5 mm Hg) with noninvasive calibration of brachial waveforms. Results were similar when the reference method (radial tonometry/transfer function) was compared with invasive measurements. In the noninvasive study, composed of 111 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolver-derived and radial tonometry/transfer function-derived central systolic pressures was -0.5 mm Hg (SD: 4.7 mm Hg). In conclusion, a novel transfer function-like algorithm, using brachial cuff-based waveform recordings, is suited to provide a realistic estimation of central systolic pressure.     

Direct and indirect blood pressure during exercise

In 27 subjects, we compared rest and exercise blood pressure (BP) measurements determined directly by catheterization of the radial artery with simultaneous values obtained indirectly by auscultation of the brachial artery. As work increased, the systolic BP increased, whereas the diastolic BP did not change. Considering all comparisons, direct BP was greater than indirect BP by a mean of 29.0 mm Hg for systolic BP and 12.3 mm Hg for diastolic BP. As exercise level increased, the difference between direct and indirect systolic BP decreased whereas the difference between direct and indirect diastolic BP did not change. Both methods have advantages for assessment of BP response to exercise: normality of BP response is best assessed by auscultation, whereas beat-by-beat trends in BP are more accurately defined by the direct method.     

Exaggerated exercise blood pressure is related to impaired endothelial vasodilator function

BACKGROUND: Persons with high normal blood pressure (BP) or mild hypertension who also have an exaggerated BP response to exercise are at risk for worsening hypertension. The mechanisms that explain this relationship are unknown. We examined the relationships of endothelial vasodilator function and of aortic stiffness with exercise BP. METHODS: Subjects were 38 men and 44 women, aged 55 to 75 years, with untreated high normal BP or mild hypertension but otherwise healthy. Exercise was performed on a treadmill. Endothelial vasodilator function was assessed as brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) during reactive hyperemia. Aortic stiffness was measured as pulse wave velocity (PWV). RESULTS: Among men, resting systolic BP explained 34% of the variance (P < .01) in maximal exercise systolic BP and FMD explained an additional 11% (P < .01); resting systolic BP explained 23% of the variance in maximal pulse pressure (PP) (P < .01), and FMD explained an additional 10% (P < .01). Among women, resting systolic BP was the only independent correlate of maximal systolic BP (R2 = 0.12, P < .03) and FMD correlated negatively with maximal PP (R2 = 0.12, P < .03). Among men, FMD was the only independent correlate of the difference between resting and maximal systolic BP (R2 = 0.20, P < .02). The FMD was the only independent correlate of the difference between resting and maximal PP among men (R2 = 0.17, P < .03) and among women (R2 = 0.12, P < .03). The PWV did not correlate with exercise BP responses. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that impaired endothelial vasodilator function may be a mechanism contributing to exercise hypertension and may also be one link between exaggerated exercise BP and worsening hypertension.     

Noninvasive measurements of central arterial pressure and distensibility by arterial applanation tonometry with a generalized transfer function: Implications for nursing

Decreased distensibility of large arteries is a strong indicator of cardiovascular risk. Measurements of arterial distensibility can be made noninvasively with the use of an arterial applanation pressure tonometer with a generalized transfer function. This article reviews (1) the concept of arterial distensibility and its relation to pulse wave amplitude, velocity, and reflection; (2) epidemiologic evidence that large-artery stiffness increases cardiovascular risks; and (3) the estimation of arterial distensibility with the use of noninvasive techniques, with an emphasis on measuring pulse wave velocity and calculating the aortic augmentation index. Finally, it addresses the application of arterial applanation tonometry in nursing research and practice.     

Hemodynamic and central blood pressure differences between carvedilol and valsartan added to lisinopril at rest and during exercise stress

There is little information about the hemodynamic and exercise-response implications of renin-angiotensin system blocker combinations. After a 3-week lisinopril (L; 40 mg/day) run-in, carvedilol (C; 20 then 40 mg/day) or valsartan (V; 160 then 320 mg/day) was added to L for 4 weeks each in a forced-titration, random order-entry crossover study in 30 subjects. Arterial tonometry (central pressures and time-tension index, TTI); impedance cardiography (steady-state hemodynamics), and ultrasound (carotid flow) were performed at rest and during supine bicycle exercise at 30 and 60 watts. At rest, both V and C lowered TTI similarly (7% to 9%, P = .05 compared with L, in part because they lowered blood pressure (3 to 7/3 to 4 mm Hg). V lowered central systolic pressure, augmentation pressure (AP), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR, all P < .02); C lowered heart rate but not central systolic pressure or SVR. During exercise, V persistently lowered central systolic pressure, AP, and SVR, whereas C did not. Neither drug affected exercise responses or carotid blood flow. Adding V or C to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor reduced cardiac workload by different mechanisms: vasodilation and reduced central blood pressure with V and lower heart rate with C.     

Potential benefits of exercise on blood pressure and vascular function

Physical activity seems to enhance cardiovascular fitness during the course of the lifecycle, improve blood pressure, and is associated with decreased prevalence of hypertension and coronary heart disease. It may also delay or prevent age-related increases in arterial stiffness. It is unclear if specific exercise types (aerobic, resistance, or combination) have a better effect on blood pressure and vascular function. This review was written based on previous original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses indexed on PubMed from years 1975 to 2012 to identify studies on different types of exercise and the associations or effects on blood pressure and vascular function. In summary, aerobic exercise (30 to 40 minutes of training at 60% to 85% of predicted maximal heart rate, most days of the week) appears to significantly improve blood pressure and reduce augmentation index. Resistance training (three to four sets of eight to 12 repetitions at 10 repetition maximum, 3 days a week) appears to significantly improve blood pressure, whereas combination exercise training (15 minutes of aerobic and 15 minutes of resistance, 5 days a week) is beneficial to vascular function, but at a lower scale. Aerobic exercise seems to better benefit blood pressure and vascular function.