Key result
Seismocardiogram-measured isovolumic moment correlates with MAP with an estimation error of ~10 mmHg.
Why the study?
There is an ongoing search for a reliable and continuous method of noninvasive blood pressure tracking.
Does continuous noninvasive blood pressure estimation utilizing seismocardiogram (SCG) signal features accurately reflect invasively measured arterial blood pressure in subjects undergoing medical procedures with anesthesia?
Observational (n=9)
Does continuous noninvasive blood pressure estimation utilizing seismocardiogram (SCG) signal features accurately reflect invasively measured arterial blood pressure in subjects undergoing medical procedures with anesthesia?
Seismocardiogram-based signal features show potential for continuous noninvasive blood pressure tracking, demonstrating significant correlation with invasive arterial measurements.
SCG-based MAP estimation may aid noninvasive tracking in procedures; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
There is an ongoing search for a reliable and continuous method of noninvasive blood pressure (BP) tracking. In this study, we investigate the feasibility of utilizing seismocardiogram (SCG) signals, i.e., chest motion caused by cardiac activity, for this purpose. This research is novel in examining the temporal relationship between the SCG-measured isovolumic moment and the electrocardiogram (PEPIM). Additionally, we compare these results with the traditionally measured pre-ejection period with the aortic opening marked as an endpoint (PEPAO). The accuracy of the BP estimation was evaluated beat to beat against invasively measured arterial BP. Data were collected on separate days as eighteen sets from nine subjects undergoing a medical procedure with anesthesia. Results for PEPIM showed a correlation of 0.67 ± 0.18 (p < 0.001), 0.66 ± 0.17 (p < 0.001), and 0.67 ± 0.17 (p < 0.001) when compared to systolic BP, diastolic BP, and mean arterial pressure (MAP), respectively. Corresponding results for PEPAO were equal to 0.61 ± 0.22 (p < 0.001), 0.61 ± 0.21 (p < 0.001), and 0.62 ± 0.22 (p < 0.001). Values of PEPIM were used to estimate MAP using two first-degree models, the linear regression model (achieved RMSE of 11.7 ± 4.0 mmHg) and extended model with HR (RMSE of 10.8 ± 4.2 mmHg), and two corresponding second-degree models (RMSE of 10.8 ± 3.7 mmHg and RMSE of 8.5 ± 3.4 mmHg for second-degree polynomial and second-degree extended, respectively). In the intrasubject testing of the second-degree model extended with HR based on PEPIM values, the mean error of MAP estimation in three follow-up measurements was in the range of 7.5 to 10.5 mmHg, without recalibration. This study demonstrates the method’s potential for further research, particularly given that both proximal and distal pulses are measured in close proximity to the heart and cardiac output. This positioning may enhance the method’s capacity to more accurately reflect central blood pressure compared to peripheral measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zienkiewicz et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Subjects undergoing a medical procedure with anesthesia (n=9). Seismocardiogram (SCG) measured isovolumic moment (PEPIM) vs. Invasively measured arterial BP was evaluated on Correlation of PEPIM with mean arterial pressure (MAP) (r = 0.67, p=< 0.001). Seismocardiogram-measured isovolumic moment (PEPIM) correlated significantly with mean arterial pressure (r=0.67, p<0.001) and estimated MAP with an RMSE of 8.5 to 11.7 mmHg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: