BACKGROUND & AIMS: :Aortic pulse wave velocity (AoPWV) and augmentation index (AIx) are commonly used measures of large elastic artery stiffness and wave reflection, respectively. Recently, a new cuff-based SphygmoCor device (Xcel) has been developed to measure both AoPWV and AIx. We sought to examine the following: (1) the validity of Xcel compared with the well-validated tonometry-based SphygmoCor device (MM3); (2) the intratest and day-to-day reliability of Xcel; (3) the influence of body side (right or left) on Xcel measurements; and (4) the relation of Xcel measurements to carotid artery compliance, distensibility and β-stiffness index. We found that measurements of AoPWV and AIx between Xcel and MM3 were not different (P=0.26 and P=0.43, N=22 and 26, respectively) and were strongly related (r=0.85 and 0.75, P<0.0001), and based on Bland-Altman plots there was good agreement between them. Intra-test (intraclass correlation=0.996 and 0.983, P<0.0001; AoPWV and AIx, N=24 and 26, respectively) and day-to-day reliability (intraclass correlation=0.979 and 0.939, P<0.0001) were high. Xcel AoPWV and AIx on the left versus right body side were not different (P=0.19 and P=0.58, N=14 and 15, respectively) and were highly correlated (r=0.99 and 0.94, P<0.0001). AoPWV and AIx measured with Xcel were positively related with β-stiffness index (r=0.62 and 0.51, P< or = 0.005, N=23 and 24, respectively) and negatively related with distensibility (r = -0.58 and -0.44, P < or = 0.02, N=23 and 24, respectively). In conclusion, Xcel measures of AIx and AoPWV are valid, highly reliable and not affected by body side. Xcel is a useful tool for use in research and the clinic.

背景与目标： ：主动脉脉搏波速度（AoPWV）和增强指数（AIx）分别是大弹性动脉僵硬度和波反射的常用量度。最近，已经开发了一种新的基于袖带的SphygmoCor设备（Xcel），可同时测量AoPWV和AIx。我们试图检查以下方面：（1）与经过充分验证的基于眼压计的SphygmoCor设备（MM3）相比，Xcel的有效性； （2）Xcel的内部测试和日常可靠性； （3）身体侧面（左右）对Xcel测量的影响； （4）Xcel测量值与颈动脉顺应性，扩张性和β-刚度指数的关系。我们发现Xcel和MM3之间的AoPWV和AIx的测量值没有差异（分别为P = 0.26和P = 0.43，N = 22和26），并且密切相关（r = 0.85和0.75，P <0.0001），并且基于在Bland-Altman地块上，他们之间达成了良好的协议。内部测试（类内相关性= 0.996和0.983，P <0.0001； AoPWV和AIx，分别为N = 24和26）和日常可靠性（类内相关性= 0.979和0.939，P <0.0001）很高。 Xcel AoPWV和AIx在左侧和右侧没有差异（分别为P = 0.19和P = 0.58，N = 14和15），并且高度相关（r = 0.99和0.94，P <0.0001）。用Xcel测得的AoPWV和AIx与β刚度指数呈正相关（r = 0.62和0.51，P <或= 0.005，N = 23和24），与可膨胀性呈负相关（r = -0.58和-0.44，P <或= 0.02，分别为N = 23和24）。总之，AIx和AoPWV的Xcel测量是有效的，高度可靠的，并且不受身体侧的影响。 Xcel是用于研究和临床的有用工具。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: BACKGROUND:The SphygmoCor is used for noninvasive assessment of ascending aortic blood pressure (BP). However, the validity of the SphygmoCor transfer function has not been tested in an exclusively type 2 diabetic patient sample. Calibration with systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) brachial BP has previously been associated with substantial imprecision of central BP estimates. We hypothesized that different noninvasive calibration strategies might improve the accuracy of the estimated ascending aortic BPs. METHODS:In 34 patients with type 2 diabetes we estimated ascending aortic SBP and DBP using the SphygmoCor device and compared these data with invasively recorded data. The validity of the transfer function was assessed by calibrating with invasively recorded DBP and mean BP (MBP). The influence of noninvasive calibration strategies was assessed by calibrating with brachial oscillometric SBP+DBP vs. DBP+MBP using a form factor (ff) of 0.33 and 0.40, respectively. RESULTS:When calibrating with invasive BP, the difference between estimated and invasively measured ascending aortic SBP and DBP was -2.3±5.6/1.0±0.9 mm Hg. When calibrating with oscillometric brachial BPs, the differences were -9.6±8.1/14.1±6.2 mm Hg (calibration with SBP and DBP), -8.3±11.7/13.9±6.1 mm Hg (DBP and MBP; ff = 0.33), and 1.9±12.2/14.1±6.2 mm Hg (DBP and MBP; ff = 0.40), respectively. Calibration with the average of 3 brachial BPs did not improve accuracy. CONCLUSIONS:The SphygmoCor transfer function seems valid in patients with type 2 diabetes. Noninvasive calibration with DBP and MBP (ff = 0.40) enables accurate estimation of mean ascending aortic SBP at the group level. However, the wide limits of agreement indicate limited accuracy in the individual patient. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials No. NCT01538290.

背景与目标： 背景：SphygmoCor用于无创评估升主动脉血压（BP）。但是，尚未在专门的2型糖尿病患者样本中测试SphygmoCor传递函数的有效性。以前，用收缩压（SBP）和舒张压（DBP）肱动脉BP进行校正与中心BP估计值的不精确性有关。我们假设不同的无创校准策略可能会提高估计的升主动脉BP的准确性。
方法：在34例2型糖尿病患者中，我们使用SphygmoCor装置估算了升主动脉SBP和DBP，并将这些数据与有创记录的数据进行了比较。通过用有创记录的DBP和平均BP（MBP）进行校准来评估传递函数的有效性。非侵入性校准策略的影响通过使用臂式示波SBP DBP vs. DBP MBP分别使用0.33和0.40的形状系数（ff）进行校准来评估。
结果：当采用有创血压进行校准时，升主动脉SBP与DBP的估计值和有创测量值之间的差异为-2.3±5.6 / 1.0±0.9 mm Hg。用示波臂血压校准时，差异为-9.6±8.1 / 14.1±6.2 mm Hg（使用SBP和DBP校准），-8.3±11.7 / 13.9±6.1 mm Hg（DBP和MBP; ff = 0.33）和1.9 ±12.2 / 14.1±6.2毫米汞柱（DBP和MBP; ff = 0.40）。用3个肱动脉BP的平均值进行标定并不能提高准确性。
结论：SphygmoCor传递函数在2型糖尿病患者中似乎有效。使用DBP和MBP（ff = 0.40）进行的非侵入性校准可在组水平上准确估计平均升主动脉SBP。但是，协议的广泛限制表明单个患者的准确性有限。
临床试验注册：临床试验编号NCT01538290。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :Methods employed for pulse wave analysis (PWA) and peripheral blood pressure (PBP) calibration vary. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of SphygmoCor PWA parameters derived from radial artery tonometry when considering (1) timing (before vs. after tonometry) and side selection (ipsilateral vs. contralateral limb) for PBP calibration and (2) side selection for tonometry (left vs. right arm). In 34 subjects (aged 21.9 ± 2.3 years), bilateral radial artery tonometry was performed simultaneously on three instances. PBP assessment via oscillometric sphygmomanometry in the left arm only and both arms simultaneously occurred following the first and second instances of tonometry, respectively. Significant within arm differences in PWA parameters derived before and after PBP measurement were observed in the right arm only (for example, aortic systolic blood pressure, Δ=0.38 ± 0.64 mm Hg). Simultaneously captured bilateral PWA variables demonstrated significant between arm differences in 88% (14/16) and 56% (9/16) of outcome variables when calibrated to within arm and equivalent PBP, respectively. Moreover, the right arm consistently demonstrated lower values for clinical PWA variables (for example, augmentation index, bias=-2.79%). However, 26% (n=9) of participants presented with clinically significant differences (>10 mm Hg) in bilateral PBP and their exclusion from analysis abolished most between arm differences observed. SphygmoCor PWA in the right radial artery results in greater variability independent of the timing of PBP measurement and magnitude of calibration pressures in young subjects. Moreover, bilateral PBP measurement is imperative to identify subjects in whom a significant difference in bilateral PWA outcomes may exist.

背景与目标： ：用于脉搏波分析（PWA）和外周血压（PBP）校准的方法会有所不同。这项研究的目的是在考虑（1）脉搏测量的时机（眼压测量之前和之后）和PBP校准的侧面选择（同侧vs.眼压测量的选择（左臂与右臂）。在34名受试者（年龄21.9±2.3岁）中，同时对3例患者进行了radial骨双侧眼压测量。仅通过左眼示波血压计进行PBP评估，并且分别在第一次眼压测量和第二次眼压测量后同时进行了两个臂的PBP评估。仅在右臂中观察到在进行PBP测量之前和之后得出的PWA参数在臂内有显着差异（例如，主动脉收缩压，Δ= 0.38±0.64 mm Hg）。同时校正的双侧PWA变量在分别校正到臂内和等效PBP时分别在88％（14/16）和56％（9/16）的结果变量之间显示出显着的臂间差异。此外，右臂始终显示出较低的临床PWA变量值（例如，增强指数，偏差= -2.79％）。但是，有26％（n = 9）的参与者表现出双侧PBP的临床上显着差异（> 10 mm Hg），并且他们被排除在分析之外消除了观察到的手臂差异之间的大部分。右radial动脉中的SphygmoCor PWA导致较大的变异性，与年轻受试者的PBP测量时机和校准压力的大小无关。此外，必须通过双边PBP测量来确定可能存在双边PWA结果显着差异的受试者。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: BACKGROUND:To investigate the accuracy of the SphygmoCor and Omron HEM9000-AI devices in the estimation of central blood pressure (BP) in comparison with the simultaneous invasive catheter measurement. METHODS:The radial arterial pulse was sequentially recorded by the use of the Omron and SphygmoCor devices in 33 patients, with the calibration of the brachial oscillometric BP, to derive central BPs, which were also measured simultaneously with a catheter-based fluid-filled manometer system. The procedure was repeated three times to obtain 99 pairs of noninvasive and invasive measurements. RESULTS:The noninvasive central systolic BP estimations were significantly (P < 0.001) associated with the invasive measurement at the ascending aorta, with a correlation coefficient of 0.91 and 0.90 for the SphygmoCor and Omron devices, respectively. However, both devices underestimated central systolic BP with a difference of -15 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI), -17 to -13 mm Hg, P < 0.001) for SphygmoCor and -2 mm Hg (95% CI, -4 to 0 mm Hg, P < 0.05) for Omron. In comparison with the invasive catheter measurement at the brachial artery, the oscillometric Omron device underestimated brachial systolic BP by -19 mm Hg (95% CI, -23 to -15 mm Hg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Both devices underestimated central systolic BP, with a larger deviation by SphygmoCor. Nonetheless, these noninvasive estimations of central BP closely correlate with the invasive measurements, and can still be properly used, on the condition that device specific diagnostic thresholds become available.

背景与目标： 背景：与同步有创导管测量相比，为了研究SphygmoCor和Omron HEM9000-AI设备在估计中心血压（BP）方面的准确性。
方法：使用Omron和SphygmoCor装置顺序记录33例患者的The动脉搏动，并校准肱动脉示波血压，以得出中心BP，并同时使用基于导管的液体压力计同时进行测量系统。重复该过程3次，以获得99对非侵入式和侵入式测量结果。
结果：升主动脉的无创中心收缩压估计值与有创测量值显着相关（P <0.001），SphygmoCor和Omron装置的相关系数分别为0.91和0.90。但是，对于SphygmoCor，这两种设备均低估了中心收缩压，两者之间的差值为-15 mm Hg（95％置信区间（CI），-17至-13 mm Hg，P <0.001）和-2 mm Hg（95％CI，-欧姆龙为4至0毫米汞柱，P <0.05）。与肱动脉的有创导管测量相比，示波法欧姆龙设备低估了肱动脉收缩压-19 mm Hg（95％CI，-23至-15 mm Hg，P <0.001）。
结论：这两种装置均低估了中央收缩压，SphygmoCor偏差较大。尽管如此，这些中心血压的非侵入性评估与侵入性测量密切相关，并且在特定于设备的诊断阈值可用的情况下仍可以正确使用。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: BACKGROUND:Arterial stiffness, measured as aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), and wave reflection, measured as augmentation index (AIx), are independent predictors for total and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare a new device, based on oscillometric pressure curves (Arteriograph), which simultaneously measures PWV and AIx, with standard techniques for measuring PWV (Complior) and AIx (SphygmoCor) in untreated hypertensive patients. METHODS:We compared PWV and AIx measured using the Arteriograph with corresponding Complior and SphygmoCor measurements in 254 untreated hypertensive patients, age 48 +/- 14 years (mean +/- SD, range 17-85 years). RESULTS:Arteriograph PWV and AIx were closely related with Complior (r = 0.60, P < 0.001) and SphygmoCor (r = 0.89, P < 0.001), respectively. Using stepwise regression analysis, the independent determinants of Arteriograph PWV were age, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and sex (r(2) = 0.44, P < 0.0001) and for AIx were age, weight, mean arterial pressure, heart rate and sex (r(2) = 0.65, P < 0.0001). The bias between the different techniques was determined by age and sex for PWV and age, body weight, sex, heart rate and mean arterial pressure for AIx. Bland-Altman plots showed that although the techniques were closely related, the limits of agreement were wide. CONCLUSION:Although Arteriograph values and the determinants of PWV and AIx are in close agreement with corresponding parameters obtained by Complior and SphygmoCor, respectively, the techniques are not interchangeable.

背景与目标： 背景：以主动脉脉搏波速度（PWV）衡量的动脉僵硬度和以增强指数（AIx）衡量的波反射是总和心血管发病率和死亡率的独立预测因子。这项研究的目的是比较一种基于示波压力曲线（动脉造影仪）的新设备，该设备可同时测量PWV和AIx，以及用于测量未经治疗的高血压患者的PWV（Complior）和AIx（SphygmoCor）的标准技术。
方法：我们比较了使用动脉造影仪测量的PWV和AIx以及相应的Complior和SphygmoCor测量值，对254位年龄在48岁至14岁（平均SD，范围17-85岁）的未经治疗的高血压患者进行了比较。
结果：动脉造影PWV和AIx分别与Complior（r = 0.60，P <0.001）和SphygmoCor（r = 0.89，P <0.001）密切相关。使用逐步回归分析，动脉造影PWV的独立决定因素是年龄，平均动脉压，心率和性别（r（2）= 0.44，P <0.0001），对于AIx，年龄，体重，平均动脉压，心率和性别是（r（2）= 0.65，P <0.0001）。不同技术之间的偏差由PWV的年龄和性别以及AIx的年龄，体重，性别，心率和平均动脉压确定。布兰德-奥特曼（Bland-Altman）图表明，尽管技术密切相关，但是一致的范围却很广。
结论：尽管动脉造影值和PWV和AIx的决定因素分别与Complior和SphygmoCor获得的相应参数紧密一致，但这些技术不可互换。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :A comparison is made of central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) and the radial augmentation index (rAIx) estimated with the B-Pro device and SphygmoCor (as reference) in 104 healthy Caucasians without drug treatment, together with an analysis of the relationship between CASP and rAIx, and arterial stiffness. Peripheral and central blood pressure, and the rAIx were measured with B-pro and SphygmoCor, with determination of the central augmentation index (CAIx), pulse wave velocity (PWV), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and the ankle-brachial index (ABI). rAIx as determined with B-Pro was greater than measured with SphygmoCor (5.85; 95%CI: 1.75-9.96), in the same way as CASP, estimated from the transfer function (1.47; 95%CI: 0.47-2.47 mm Hg) and with the second peak of the radial wave (4.46; 95%CI: 2.80-6.12 mm Hg). The Pearson correlation coefficient for CASP with B-Pro and SphygmoCor was r = 0.937 (P < 0.01), with an intraclass correlation of 0.972 (95%CI: 0.959-0.981). In the case of rAIx, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.436 (P < 0.01), with an intraclass correlation of 0.599 (95% CI: 0.409-0.728). The correlation of CASP (B-pro) with PWV was r = 0.558 (P < 0.01), with CAIx r = 0.253 (P < 0.01) and with carotid IMT r = 0.442 (P < 0.01). The correlation of rAIx (B-Pro) with age was r = 0.369 (r < 0.01), and with CAIx r = 0.463 (P < 0.001). Central arterial pressure estimated with B-Pro in healthy Caucasians without drug treatment offers adequate validity vs. the reference standard (SphygmoCor). However, in the estimation of rAIx, some differences with respect to the reference standard have been detected, probably related to measurement of the second peak of the radial wave.

背景与目标： ：比较了104名未接受药物治疗的健康白种人中，使用B-Pro设备和SphygmoCor（作为参考）估算的中心主动脉收缩压（CASP）和径向增强指数（rAIx） CASP和rAIx，以及动脉僵硬度。用B-pro和SphygmoCor测量周围和中心血压以及rAIx，并测定中心增强指数（CAIx），脉搏波速度（PWV），颈动脉内膜中层厚度（IMT）和踝肱指数（ABI）。 B-Pro测定的rAIx大于SphygmoCor测量的rAIx（5.85; 95％CI：1.75-9.96），与CASP相同，根据传递函数估算（1.47; 95％CI：0.47-2.47 mm Hg）并具有径向波的第二个峰值（4.46; 95％CI：2.80-6.12 mm Hg）。 CASP与B-Pro和SphygmoCor的皮尔逊相关系数为r = 0.937（P <0.01），组内相关系数为0.972（95％CI：0.959-0.981）。在rAIx的情况下，相关系数为r = 0.436（P <0.01），组内相关系数为0.599（95％CI：0.409-0.728）。 CASP（B-pro）与PWV的相关性为r = 0.558（P <0.01），CAIx r = 0.253（P <0.01）和颈动脉IMT r = 0.442（P <0.01）。 rAIx（B-Pro）与年龄的相关性为r = 0.369（r <0.01），而CAIx r = 0.463（P <0.001）。与参考标准（SphygmoCor）相比，未经药物治疗的健康高加索人使用B-Pro估算的中央动脉压具有足够的有效性。但是，在rAIx的估算中，已经发现了相对于参考标准品的一些差异，这可能与径向波第二个峰值的测量有关。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: BACKGROUND:New 2007 European Society of Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring arterial stiffness in patients with arterial hypertension, suggesting a carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity over 12 m/s as an estimate of subclinical organ damage. Considering this cutoff point, it is worth exploring whether or not there are significant differences in results obtained using various techniques for measuring aortic pulse wave velocity. The aim of the study was to compare aortic pulse wave velocity measurements using Complior, SphygmoCor, and Arteriograph devices, and to assess the effect of pulse wave transit time and traveled distance on pulse wave velocity values. METHODS:Aortic pulse wave velocity was measured on a single visit, using these devices, in randomized order, in a group of 64 patients with grade 1 or 2 arterial hypertension. RESULTS:Aortic pulse wave velocity measured using Complior (10.1 +/- 1.7 m/s) was significantly higher than that obtained using SphygmoCor (8.1 +/- 1.1 m/s) or Arteriograph (8.6 +/- 1.3 m/s). No differences were noted between pulse wave velocity measurements using SphygmoCor and Arteriograph. Between-method comparison revealed that differences in traveled distance were significant: Complior versus Arteriograph [0.09 m, Confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.12 m, P < 0.05], Complior versus SphygmoCor (0.15 m, CI: 0.13-0.16 m, P < 0.05), Arteriograph versus SphygmoCor (0.05 m, CI: 0.03-0.07 m, P < 0.05). No between-method differences were found for transit times. CONCLUSION:Differences in pulse wave velocity obtained by compared devices resulted primarily from using various methods for measuring traveled distance. It appears reasonable to establish uniform principles for the measurement of traveled distance. Because a large number of prognosis/survival studies used direct distance between carotid and femoral sites of pulse wave recording, this distance should be mostly recommended.

背景与目标： 摘要背景：2007年新的欧洲高血压学会指南建议测量高血压患者的动脉僵硬度，建议将颈股脉搏波速度超过12 m / s作为亚临床器官损伤的估计值。考虑到这个截止点，值得探讨使用各种测量主动脉脉搏波速度的技术所获得的结果是否存在显着差异。该研究的目的是比较使用Complior，SphygmoCor和Arteriograph装置测量的主动脉脉搏波速度，并评估脉搏波传播时间和行进距离对脉搏波速度值的影响。
方法：随机选择64例1级或2级动脉高压患者使用这些设备，随机访问一次主动脉脉搏波速度。
结果：使用Complior（10.1 /-1.7 m / s）测量的主动脉脉搏波速度显着高于使用SphygmoCor（8.1 /-1.1 m / s）或动脉造影仪（8.6 /-1.3 m / s）测得的主动脉脉搏波速度。使用SphygmoCor和Arteriograph测量脉搏波速度之间没有发现差异。方法之间的比较显示，行进距离差异很大：Complior与动脉造影仪[0.09 m，置信区间（CI）：0.08-0.12 m，P <0.05]，Complior与SphygmoCor（0.15 m，CI：0.13-0.16 m， P <0.05），动脉造影仪与SphygmoCor的比较（0.05 m，CI：0.03-0.07 m，P <0.05）。在运输时间上未发现方法间差异。
结论：比较装置获得的脉搏波速度差异主要是由于使用各种测量行进距离的方法引起的。建立行进距离测量的统一原理似乎是合理的。由于大量的预后/生存研究均使用脉搏波记录的颈动脉和股骨部位之间的直接距离，因此应主要建议使用该距离。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: BACKGROUND:Studies have established the prognostic value of central SBP and pulse pressure (PP). The SphygmoCor XCEL (AtCor Medical, Sydney, Australia) device provides practical central blood pressure (BP) measurement for daily clinical use with its easy-to-use, operator-independent procedure. However, this device has not been validated against invasive measurement. METHOD:Simultaneous oscillometric and high-fidelity invasive measurements of central SBP and PP were compared for 36 patients who underwent coronary arteriography. Invasive measurement of brachial BP was also performed. Oscillometrically measured brachial SBP and DBP were used for calibration. RESULTS:The differences between the invasive and the oscillometric measurements were -4.6 ± 9.9 mmHg for central SBP and -18.5 ± 10.6 mmHg for central PP (mean ± SD). We found strong correlation between the invasive and oscillometric measurements (central SBP and central PP, respectively: r = 0.91 and 0.89; slope, 1.28 and 1.38; both P < 0.001). Although the large slopes of the regression lines indicated a systemic bias toward lower values when measuring in high pressure ranges, the bias was mainly due to calibration error rather than device-specific error because errors of the central measurements correlated well with those of brachial measurements (SBP and PP, respectively: r = 0.80 and 0.77; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:The impaired accuracy of central BP measurement was mainly due to calibration-derived, but not device-dependent, bias. Strong correlation between oscillometric and invasive measurements indicates that SphygmoCor XCEL warrants future investigations to determine the clinical validity of this device.

背景与目标： 背景：研究已经确定了中央SBP和脉压（PP）的预后价值。 SphygmoCor XCEL（澳大利亚悉尼AtCor Medical）设备以其易于使用，独立于操作员的程序为日常临床使用提供实用的中心血压（BP）测量。但是，该设备尚未针对侵入式测量进行验证。
方法：比较了36例行冠状动脉造影的患者同时进行示波和高保真中央SBP和PP的侵入性测量。还进行了肱动脉血压的侵入性测量。用示波法测量的肱动脉SBP和DBP进行校准。
结果：侵入式和示波测量之间的差异在中央SBP为-4.6±±9.9 mmHg，在中央PP为-18.5±±10.6 mmHg（平均值±SD）。我们发现，侵入式和示波测量之间有很强的相关性（中央SBP和中央PP：r = 0.91和0.89；斜率分别为1.28和1.38； P <0.001）。尽管回归线的大斜率表明在高压范围内进行测量时系统会向较低的值倾斜，但该偏差主要是由于校准误差而不是特定于设备的误差，因为中央测量值的误差与肱动脉测量值的误差具有很好的相关性（ SBP和PP：r = 0.80和0.77；均P <0.001）。
结论：中心血压测量准确性受损主要是由于校准引起的，而不是与设备有关的偏差。示波法和侵入式测量之间的强相关性表明，SphygmoCor XCEL值得进一步研究以确定该设备的临床有效性。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :The objective of this study was to compare central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) and augmentation index (AIx) from two recently introduced devices, Omron HEM-9000 (OM) and Arteriograph (AG), not using a transfer function with those of the widely used SphygmoCor (SC) calibrated on brachial blood pressure like OM. Random-order manufacturer-recommended measurements using SC and OM by radial tonometry and AG were taken on the left arm in 35 men (54±10 years) after 5 min supine rest. Results are means (95% confidence interval) of differences using paired t-tests. cSBP by OM was 4.1 (1.0-7.1) mm Hg higher than by AG. Both OM and AG estimated the mean cSBP to be significantly higher than did SC (114.8 mm Hg) by 12.5 (10.3-14.7) and 8.6 (4.9-12.3) mm Hg, respectively, although closely correlating with SC (r=0.9). Calibrating SC with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and more accurate mean arterial pressure (as DBP+0.4 × PP) resulted in significantly higher cSBP statistically not different from AG's cSBP: 0.9 (-1.1 to +2.9) mm Hg, and closer to OM's: 5.1 (3.4-6.8) mm Hg. Radial AIx from SC and OM disagreed by 3 (0.7-5.4)%, and correlated (r=0.8) with AG's brachial AIx. AG's aortic AIx was 7.9 (5.7-10.2)% higher than SC's, but closely correlated (r=0.9). Clinically significant, higher cSBP measured by AG, OM and more accurately calibrated SC adds to previous data suggesting that SC measurements by classic calibration underestimate cSBP. Invasive studies involving all three devices would be more illuminating.

背景与目标： ：这项研究的目的是比较两种最新推出的设备Omron HEM-9000（OM）和动脉造影仪（AG）的中心收缩压（cSBP）和增强指数（AIx），不使用与广泛使用的SphygmoCor（SC）可以像OM一样根据臂式血压进行校准。仰卧休息5分钟后，对35名男性（54±10岁）的左臂进行了放射状眼压计和AG的SC和OM随机测量，制造商建议进行测量。结果是使用配对t检验的均值（95％置信区间）。 OM的cSBP比AG高4.1（1.0-7.1）mm Hg。 OM和AG均估计平均cSBP分别比SC（114.8 mm Hg）分别高12.5（10.3-14.7）和8.6（4.9-12.3）mm Hg，尽管与SC密切相关（r = 0.9）。用舒张压（DBP）和更准确的平均动脉压（如DBP 0.4×PP）校准SC导致cSBP明显更高，与AG的cSBP统计学上无差异：0.9（-1.1至2.9）mm Hg，更接近OM：5.1 （3.4-6.8）毫米汞柱。来自SC和OM的径向AIx差异为3（0.7-5.4）％，并且与AG的臂膀AIx相关（r = 0.8）。 AG的主动脉AIx比SC高7.9（5.7-10.2）％，但密切相关（r = 0.9）。临床上有意义的是，通过AG，OM测量的cSBP较高，并且对SC进行了更准确的校准，这增加了以前的数据，这表明通过经典校准进行的SC测量低估了cSBP。涉及所有三个设备的侵入性研究将更具启发性。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :A series of novel selective BRAFV600E inhibitory agents (Compound 1-16) 5-(2,3-dihydrobenzo[b][1,4]dioxane-6-yl)-N,3-diaryl-4,5-dihydro-1H-pyrazole-1-carbothioamides have been designed and synthesized. Their anti-proliferation and BRAF inhibitory activities were evaluated. Though 15, 4 and 12 all displayed comparable activity with the positive control Vemurafenib, only 12 indicated fine selectivity on BRAFV600E (IC50 = 0.06 μM for BRAFV600E; GI50 = 0.52 μM for A375) over BRAFWT at both kinase and cell levels. This result satisfied the designing concept of improving activity and introducing selectivity. Flow cytometry analysis and western blot convinced the apoptosis induction and kinase inhibitory activity. Docking simulation inferred the differences in binding patterns of BRAFV600E and BRAFWT, pointing out that the future orientation might be seeking for outer space binding of BRAFV600E and avoiding interactions with HIS573 of BRAFWT. These results brought potent BRAF inhibitors one step further to selective agents, enhancing the potential for safe medication.

背景与目标： ：一系列新型的选择性BRAFV600E抑制剂（化合物1-16）5-（2,3-二氢苯并[b] [1,4]二恶烷-6-基）-N，3-二芳基-4,5-二氢-已经设计并合成了1H-吡唑-1-碳硫酰胺。对它们的抗增殖和BRAF抑制活性进行了评估。尽管15、4和12均显示出与阳性对照Vemurafenib相当的活性，但在激酶和细胞水平上，只有12个表明对BRAFV600E有很好的选择性（对于BRAFV600E，IC50 =0.06μM；对于A375，GI50 =0.52μM）。该结果满足了提高活性和引入选择性的设计思想。流式细胞仪分析和免疫印迹证实了细胞凋亡的诱导和激酶抑制活性。对接模拟推断出BRAFV600E和BRAFWT的结合方式有所不同，指出未来的方向可能是寻求BRAFV600E的外层空间结合，并避免与BRAFWT的HIS573相互作用。这些结果使有效的BRAF抑制剂向选择性药物迈出了一步，从而提高了安全用药的潜力。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :We modeled the mobility of mobile phone users in order to study the fundamental spreading patterns that characterize a mobile virus outbreak. We find that although Bluetooth viruses can reach all susceptible handsets with time, they spread slowly because of human mobility, offering ample opportunities to deploy antiviral software. In contrast, viruses using multimedia messaging services could infect all users in hours, but currently a phase transition on the underlying call graph limits them to only a small fraction of the susceptible users. These results explain the lack of a major mobile virus breakout so far and predict that once a mobile operating system's market share reaches the phase transition point, viruses will pose a serious threat to mobile communications.

背景与目标： ：我们对手机用户的移动性进行了建模，以研究表征手机病毒爆发的基本传播方式。我们发现，尽管蓝牙病毒可以随时间传播到所有易受感染的手机，但由于人类移动性，它们传播缓慢，为部署抗病毒软件提供了充足的机会。相比之下，使用多媒体消息服务的病毒可能会在数小时内感染所有用户，但是当前基础调用图上的相变将它们限制为仅一小部分易受影响的用户。这些结果说明了到目前为止尚无重大的移动病毒爆发，并预测，一旦移动操作系统的市场份额达到阶段性转变点，病毒将对移动通信构成严重威胁。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the fastest-rising causes of cancer-related death worldwide, but its deficiency of specific biomarkers and therapeutic targets in the early stages lead to severe inadequacy in the early diagnosis and treatment of HCC. Covalently closed circular RNA (circRNA), which was once considered an aberrant splicing by-product, is now drawing new interest in cancer research because of its remarkable functionality. Beneath the surface of the dominant functional proteins events, a hidden circRNA-centric noncoding regulatory RNAs network active in the very early stage of HCC is here revealed by a genome-wide analysis of mRNA, circRNA, and microRNA (miRNA) expression profiles. Circ-CDYL (chromodomain Y like) is specifically up-regulated in the early stages of HCC and therefore contributes to the properties of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EPCAM)-positive liver tumor-initiating cells. Circ-CDYL interacts with mRNAs encoding hepatoma-derived growth factor (HDGF) and hypoxia-inducible factor asparagine hydroxylase (HIF1AN) by acting as the sponge of miR-892a and miR-328-3p, respectively. Subsequently, activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT serine/threonine kinase-mechanistic target of rapamycin kinase complex 1/β-catenin and NOTCH2 pathways, which promote the expression of the effect proteins, baculoviral IAP repeat containing 5 (BIRC5 or SURVIVIN) and MYC proto-oncogene, is influenced by circ-CDYL. A treatment incorporating circ-CDYL interference and traditional enzyme inhibitors targeting PI3K and HIF1AN demonstrated highly effective inhibition of stem-like characteristics and tumor growth in HCC. Finally, we demonstrated that circ-CDYL expression or which combined with HDGF and HIF1AN are both independent markers for discrimination of early stages of HCC with the odds ratios of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.17) and 124.58 (95% CI, 13.26-1170.56), respectively. Conclusion: These findings uncover a circRNA-centric noncoding regulatory RNAs network in the early stages of HCC and thus provide a possibility for surveillance and early treatment of HCC.

背景与目标： ：肝细胞癌（HCC）是世界范围内与癌症相关的死亡的最快上升原因之一，但是其早期缺乏特定的生物标志物和治疗靶标导致HCC的早期诊断和治疗严重不足。共价封闭的环状RNA（circRNA）曾经被认为是异常的剪接副产物，由于其卓越的功能性，现在正引起癌症研究的新兴趣。在主要功能性蛋白质事件的表面之下，这里通过在全基因组范围内对mRNA，circRNA和microRNA（miRNA）表达谱进行分析，揭示了在HCC早期阶段活跃的以circRNA为中心的隐藏非编码调控RNA网络。在HCC的早期阶段，Circ-CDYL（类似Y的色域）被上调，因此有助于上皮细胞粘附分子（EPCAM）阳性的肝肿瘤起始细胞的特性。 Circ-CDYL分别充当miR-892a和miR-328-3p的海绵，与编码肝癌衍生生长因子（HDGF）和缺氧诱导因子天冬酰胺羟化酶（HIF1AN）的mRNA相互作用。随后，激活雷帕霉素激酶复合物1 /β-catenin和NOTCH2途径的磷酸肌醇3-激酶（PI3K）-AKT丝氨酸/苏氨酸激酶机制靶标，从而促进效应蛋白的表达，杆状病毒IAP重复序列包含5（BIRC5或SURVIVIN）和MYC原癌基因，受circ-CDYL的影响。结合了circ-CDYL干扰和靶向PI3K和HIF1AN的传统酶抑制剂的治疗显示出可有效抑制肝癌中的茎样特征和肿瘤生长。最后，我们证明circ-CDYL表达或与HDGF和HIF1AN结合使用都是区分HCC早期阶段的独立标志物，比值比为1.09（95％置信区间[CI]，1.02-1.17）和124.58（95 ％CI，13.26-1170.56）。结论：这些发现揭示了在HCC早期以circRNA为中心的非编码RNA的网络，从而为HCC的监测和早期治疗提供了可能。

BACKGROUND & AIMS: :Central arterial pressure, measured close to the heart, may be of more patho-physiological importance than conventional non-invasive cuff blood pressure. The technique of applanation tonometry using SphygmoCor has been proposed as a non-invasive method of estimating central pressure. This relies on mathematically derived generalized transfer functions, which have been previously validated using invasive peripheral pressure measurements. We compared simultaneous estimates of central aortic pressure using this technique with those measured directly during the routine diagnostic cardiac catheterization of 30 subjects (age range 27-84 years), half of whom were aged 65 years or more. This was done by applanating the left radial artery and recording the non-invasive brachial cuff blood pressure to generate a central aortic pressure estimate, using the SphygmoCor radial transfer function. The comparative results were analysed using Bland-Altman plots of mean difference. SphygmoCor, on average, underestimated systolic central arterial pressure by 13.3 mmHg and overestimated diastolic pressure by 11.5 mmHg. The results were similar in patients aged under and above 65 years. Furthermore, non-invasively measured brachial pressures were seen to give an overall closer estimate of the central arterial pressure than the SphygmoCor system. The transfer function has been validated from invasively measured arterial pressures and the current use by the system of non-invasive measures may explain the discrepancies. However, age, drugs and arterial disease would also be expected to play a role.

背景与目标： ：靠近心脏测得的中央动脉压可能比常规的非侵入式袖带血压更重要的病理生理意义。已经提出了使用SphygmoCor进行压平眼压术的技术，作为估计中心压力的一种非侵入性方法。这依赖于数学推导的广义传递函数，该函数先前已使用侵入性外周压力测量进行了验证。我们将使用该技术对主动脉中心压的同时估计与在30名受试者（年龄范围27-84岁）的常规诊断性心脏导管插入术中直接测量的估计值进行了比较，其中一半年龄在65岁以上。这是通过使用SphygmoCor径向传递函数，通过压平左radial动脉并记录非侵入性肱动脉袖套血压以生成中心主动脉压力估算值来完成的。使用均值差的Bland-Altman图分析比较结果。 SphygmoCor平均将收缩期中央动脉压低估了13.3 mmHg，将舒张压高估了11.5 mmHg。 65岁以下及以上的患者的结果相似。此外，与SphygmoCor系统相比，非侵入式测量的肱动脉压可以总体上估计中心动脉压。传递函数已通过有创测量的动脉压得到验证，无创测量系统的当前使用可能解释了这种差异。但是，年龄，毒品和动脉疾病也有望发挥作用。

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

背景与目标：

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

背景与目标：