The accuracy of blood pressure values obtained by continuous noninvasive finger blood pressure recording via the FINAPRES device was evaluated by comparison with simultaneous intraarterial monitoring both at rest and during performance of tests known to induce fast and often marked changes in blood pressure. The comparison was performed in 24 normotensive or essential hypertensive subjects. The average discrepancy between finger and intra-arterial blood pressure recorded over a 30-minute rest period was 6.5 +/- 2.6 mm Hg and 5.4 +/- 2.9 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively; a close between-method correspondence was also demonstrated by linear regression analysis. The beat-to-beat changes in finger systolic and diastolic blood pressure were on average similar to those measured intra-arterially during tests that induced a pressor or depressor response (hand-grip, cold pressor test, diving test, Valsalva maneuver, intravenous injections of phenylephrine and trinitroglycerine) as well as during tests that caused vasomotor changes without major variations in blood pressure (application of lower body negative pressure, passive leg raising). The average between-method discrepancy in the evaluation of blood pressure changes was never greater than 4.3 and 2.0 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively; the corresponding standard deviations ranged between 4.6 and 1.6 mm Hg. Beat-to-beat computer analysis of blood pressure variability over the 30-minute rest period provided standard deviations almost identical when calculated by separate consideration of intra-arterial and finger blood pressure tracings (3.7 and 3.8 mm Hg, respectively).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In the past decade, there has been a resurgence in the field of unobtrusive cardiomechanical assessment, through advancing methods for measuring and interpreting ballistocardiogram (BCG) and seismocardiogram (SCG) signals. Novel instrumentation solutions have enabled BCG and SCG measurement outside of clinical settings, in the home, in the field, and even in microgravity. Customized signal processing algorithms have led to reduced measurement noise, clinically relevant feature extraction, and signal modeling. Finally, human subjects physiology studies have been conducted using these novel instruments and signal processing tools with promising results. This paper reviews the recent advances in these areas of modern BCG and SCG research.

The baroreceptor control of the sinus node was evaluated in 10 normotensive and 10 age-matched essential hypertensive subjects in whom ambulatory blood pressure was recorded intra-arterially for 24 hours and scanned by a computer to identify the sequences of three or more consecutive beats in which systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse interval (PI) progressively rose (+PI/+SBP) or fell (-PI/-SBP) in a linear fashion, according to a method validated in cats. In normotensive subjects, several hundred +PI/+SBP and -PI/-SBP sequences of 3 beats were found whereas the number of sequences of 4, 5, and more than 5 beats showed a progressive drastic reduction. The mean slopes of +PI/+SBP (7.6 +/- 2.0 msec/mm Hg) and -PI/-SBP (6.4 +/- 1.5 msec/mm Hg) sequences were similar, but in both instances there was a large scattering of the values around the mean (variation coefficients: 64.2 +/- 4.7 and 62.6 +/- 2.4%). The slopes decreased as a function of the sequence length and baseline heart rate and increased to a marked extent during the night as compared with daytime values. All sequences were more rare (-33.2% for +PI/+SBP and -31.7% for -PI/-SBP) and less steep in hypertensive subjects (-40.3 and -36.2%, respectively), who failed to show the marked nighttime increase in slope observed in normotensive subjects. To our knowledge, these observations provide the first description in humans of the baroreceptor-heart rate reflex in daily life. This reflex is characterized by marked within-subject variations in sensitivity due in part to hemodynamic, temporal, and behavioral factors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This study compared spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) estimates obtained from an identical set of data by 11 European centers using different methods and procedures. Noninvasive blood pressure (BP) and ECG recordings were obtained in 21 subjects, including 2 subjects with established baroreflex failure. Twenty-one estimates of BRS were obtained by methods including the two main techniques of BRS estimates, i.e., the spectral analysis (11 procedures) and the sequence method (7 procedures) but also one trigonometric regressive spectral analysis method (TRS), one exogenous model with autoregressive input method (X-AR), and one Z method. With subjects in a supine position, BRS estimates obtained with calculations of α-coefficient or gain of the transfer function in both the low-frequency band or high-frequency band, TRS, and sequence methods gave strongly related results. Conversely, weighted gain, X-AR, and Z exhibited lower agreement with all the other techniques. In addition, the use of mean BP instead of systolic BP in the sequence method decreased the relationships with the other estimates. Some procedures were unable to provide results when BRS estimates were expected to be very low in data sets (in patients with established baroreflex failure). The failure to provide BRS values was due to setting of algorithmic parameters too strictly. The discrepancies between procedures show that the choice of parameters and data handling should be considered before BRS estimation. These data are available on the web site ( http://www.cbi.polimi.it/glossary/eurobavar.html ) to allow the comparison of new techniques with this set of results.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE POINT:COUNTERPOINT DEBATES: This series of debates was initiated for the Journal of Applied Physiology because we believe an important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, with a synthesis subsequently arrived at, is a powerful and often entertaining method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of a controversy. Before reading these Point:Counterpoint manuscripts or preparing a brief commentary on their content (see below for instructions), the reader should understand that authors on each side of the debate are expected to advance a polarized viewpoint and to select the most convincing data to support their position. This approach differs markedly from the review article where the reader expects the author to present balanced coverage of the topic. Each of the authors has been strictly limited in the lengths of both the manuscript (1,200 words) and the rebuttal (400). The number of references to publications is also limited to 30, and citation of unpublished findings is prohibited.