Does mean arterial blood pressure scale with body mass in mammals? Effects of measurement of blood pressure

For at least the last 30 years, it has been discussed whether mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) is independent of body mass or whether it increases in accordance with the vertical height between the heart and the brain. The debate has centred on the most appropriate mathematical models for analysing allometric scaling and phylogenetic relationships; there has been previously little focus on evaluating the validity of underlying physiological data. Currently, the 2 most comprehensive scaling analyses are based on data from 47 species of mammals, based on 114 references. We reviewed all available references to determine under which physiological conditions MAP had been recorded. In 44 (38.6%) of the cited references, MAP was measured in anaesthetized animals. Data from conscious animals were reported in 59 (51.8%) of references; of these, 3 (2.6%) were radiotelemetric studies. In 5 species, data were reported from both anaesthetized and conscious animals, and the mean difference in the MAP between these settings was 20 +/- 29 mm Hg. From a literature search, we identified MAP measurements performed by radiotelemetry in 11 of the 47 species included in the meta-analyses. A Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 1 mm Hg with 95% confidence interval (from -35 to 36 mm Hg); that is, the limits of agreement between radiotelemetric studies and studies in restrained animals were double the supposed difference in the MAP between the mouse and elephant. In conclusion, the existing literature does not provide evidence for either a positive or neutral scaling of arterial pressure to body mass across taxa.