Validation of Volume–Pressure Recording Tail-Cuff Blood Pressure Measurements

• Published in: American journal of hypertension 2008-12, Vol.21 (12), p.1288-1291
• Main Authors: Feng, Minjie, Whitesall, Steven, Zhang, Yunyu, Beibel, Martin, Alecy, Louis D', DiPetrillo, Keith
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Arterial hypertension. Arterial hypotension; Biological and medical sciences; Blood and lymphatic vessels; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination - instrumentation; Blood Pressure Determination - methods; Blood Pressure Monitors; Cardiology. Vascular system; Clinical manifestations. Epidemiology. Investigative techniques. Etiology; Medical sciences; Mice; Mice, Inbred C57BL; Mice, Inbred Strains; Tail - blood supply; Telemetry - instrumentation; Telemetry - methods
• ISSN: 0895-7061; 1941-7225; 1879-1905
• DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2008.301

Background The American Heart Association has recommended tail-cuff blood pressure measurement for high-throughput experimental designs, including mutagenesis screens and genetic crosses. However, some tail-cuff methods show good agreement with radiotelemetry and others do not, indicating that each tail-cuff method requires independent validation. Methods We validated the volume–pressure recording (VPR) tail-cuff method by comparison to simultaneous radiotelemetry measurements. Results Bland–Altman analysis of 560 cycles from 26 independent measurement sessions showed good agreement between VPR and radiotelemetry measurements, with tail-cuff measurements being 0.25 mm Hg lower than telemetry measurements on average. However, the VPR method was less accurate, compared to radiotelemetry, at extreme high and low (i.e., 180 mm Hg) systolic blood pressures (SBPs). Conclusions We conclude that the VPR tail-cuff method provides accurate blood pressure measurements over the physiological range of blood pressure in mice.