Peripheral and brachial blood pressure during standardized occupation-related tests in normotensive and mild hypertensive men and women

Abstract

We investigated the usefulness of peripheral blood pressure (BP) measurement in the assessment of strain in occupational physiology. Our hypothesis was that the brachial and peripheral BP reflect physiologically different events under various occupation-related demands in normotensive (NT) and hypertensive (HT) people. A group of 20 female and 20 male subjects with unmedicated mild hypertension that had been diagnosed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [awake time systolic/diastolic BP (BPs/BPd) 142.9 (SD 11.3)/86.4 (SD 6.2) mmHg] and 40 NT matched by age and sex [BPs/BPd 120.0 (SD 9.8)/75.6 (SD 5.9) mmHg] attended a laboratory session to undertake mental arithmetic tasks, a fingergrip test and submaximal cycle ergometry. Brachial and peripheral BP as well as heart rate were measured using a sphygmomanometer and an continuously automatic blood pressure measuring device on the finger, respectively. The peripheral BPs was higher than brachial BPs, BPd was similar for peripheral and brachial BP except during cycle ergometry. Associations between the levels of brachial and peripheral BP depended on demands and did not explain more than 42% of the common variance. The highest correlations between the two BP methods were observed during habituation, recovery and mental demands, and weak correlations during cycle ergometry. For peripheral BPs and BPd we found significant correlations in all phases of the test (r = 0.58 to 0.86, P < 0.001), also in ergometry (NT r = 0.62, P < 0.001, HT r = 0.53, P < 0.001), in contrast to the brachial BP. Peripheral BP differentiated the two BP groups (57.5%-72.5% correctly classified) which had been grouped by daily measurement of brachial BP, but brachial BP was superior in this respect with 65.0%-87.5% being correctly classified. These results supported the suggestion that the combined measurement of peripheral and brachial BP provides complementary information regarding physiological changes in NT and HT in different situations.

Covariation and Temporal Stability of Peripheral and Brachial Blood Pressure Responses to Mental and Static Stress

“…Furthermore, there are only low interindividual correlations between these peripheral and brachial BP measures, especially for resting scores (Test session 1: SBP: 0.30; DBP: 0.14). These coefficients are similar to those obtained in the Kugler et al (1997) study (SBP: 0.27-0.33; DBP: 0.11-0.29), while Scheuch et al (2000) report higher rest score correlations (SBP: 0.65; DBP: 0.53).…”

“…The correlations between peripheral and brachial BP readings for task scores (T1: SBP: 0.41-0.74; DBP: 0.24-0.49) were higher than those obtained for rest scores. The coefficients of these task scores are roughly comparable with the findings by Scheuch et al (2000). Though reactivity scores (change scores) are generally less reliable than state scores (Manuck et al, 1993), the correlations between peripheral and brachial BP change scores were not lower than those of task scores.…”

“…Peripheral and brachial BP are not at all identical; there are evident differences between mean systolic BP levels: Peripheral SBP was about 20 mmHg higher than brachial SBP. This effect has already been described elsewhere (Hildebrandt et al, 1991;McAuley et al, 1997;Scheuch et al, 2000;Seibt et al, 1998) and can be explained with the reflection of the pulse wave in the periphery (Stroud et al, 1994;Vögele & Steptoe, 1992) and with changes in systemic hemodynamics.…”

“…Several studies have demonstrated the correlation between BP measurements on the basis of the Penaz technique (Finapres) and intraartery pressure (Imholz et al, 1992;Kurki et al, 1987;Novak et al, 1994;Omboni et al, 1993;Rongen et al, 1995;Sagiv et al, 1995). Comparisons between peripheral (Penaz) BP measures and conventional noninvasive BP readings based on auscultatory or oscillometric methods often found higher systolic BP values with the Penaz method, while there were no such differences in the diastolic BP under stan-dardized laboratory conditions (e. g., Scheuch et al, 2000). Jagomägi et al (1996) compared two different methods for noninvasive beat-to-beat finger BP measures and concluded that both methods provide reliable data.…”