LAUSR

s 87 removal) to aortic mean and diastolic BP. For MoG, central pressure was derived through standard systolic-diastolic calibration (MoGC1) as well as mean-diastolic calibration (MoGC2). Results: Mean SD differences between device and intra-arterial BP are presented in the Table. There was moderate correlation between device and intra-arterial brachial systolic BP (R Z 0.58 XCEL, R Z 0.47 MoG, P < 0.01) and central systolic BP (R Z 0.69 XCEL, R Z 0.64 MoGC1, R Z 0.43 MoGC2, P < 0.01). Intra-arterial central-to-brachial pulse amplification factor was 1.17 0.16 (range 0.88 to 1.55), but there was no correlation between device and intra-arterial amplification (R Z 0.07 XCEL, R Z 0.07 MoGC1, R Z 0.19 MoGC2, P > 0.18). Results in sub-groups 13 and <13 years were similar. Conclusion: Both oscillometric devices overestimated brachial and central systolic/pulse BP, exceeding the validation criteria of 5 8 mmHg, and there was no correlation between intra-arterial and device-derived central-to-brachial pulse amplification. Diastolic BP was acceptable.