Key result
Non-invasive estimation of pressure gradients using ultrasound or MRI showed good correlation with invasive catheterization, though accuracy remains questionable due to over- or underestimation.
Why the study?
Invasive catheterization alters blood flow and requires significant resources, while routine non-invasive estimation using ultrasound and the simplified Bernoulli equation has several limitations.
Do non-invasive methods for estimating intravascular pressure gradients accurately correlate with invasive catheterization measurements?
Population
Studies comparing non-invasively estimated pressure gradients with invasively measured pressure gradients in vivo
Comparison
Non-invasively estimated pressure gradients vs invasively measured pressure gradients
Design
Literature review
Authors
Loading...
Caution warranted against clinical reliance on non-invasive estimates due to accuracy limits; leaves open need for refined validation studies.
Do non-invasive methods for estimating intravascular pressure gradients accurately correlate with invasive catheterization measurements?
While non-invasive pressure gradient estimation shows good correlation with invasive catheterization, inaccuracies such as over- or underestimation highlight the need for more advanced imaging techniques.
Nguyen et al. (2018) conducted a review in Intravascular pressure gradients. Non-invasive assessment (ultrasound, MRI) vs. Invasive catheterization was evaluated on Correlation and accuracy of non-invasive estimation of pressure gradients compared to catheterization. Non-invasive estimation of pressure gradients using ultrasound or MRI showed good correlation with invasive catheterization, though accuracy remains questionable due to over- or underestimation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: