Key result
The Vicorder device underestimated central systolic blood pressure by 4.0 ± 7.4 mmHg compared to invasive measurements when calibrated to invasive MAP/DBP (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the Vicorder device accurately estimate central blood pressure compared to invasive measurement and the SphygmoCor device in patients undergoing angiography and healthy individuals?
Population
50 patients undergoing cardiac angiography and a separate group of 90 healthy individuals (total n=140)
Comparison
Noninvasive estimation of central blood pressure… vs Noninvasive estimation using the SphygmoCor…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Vicorder calibration choices warrant clinical caution in central SBP estimates; extends device comparisons but leaves open validation for routine use.
Cross-Sectional (n=140)
Does the Vicorder device accurately estimate central blood pressure compared to invasive measurement and the SphygmoCor device in patients undergoing angiography and healthy individuals?
Absolute Event Rate: -4% vs -1.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
The Vicorder provides reliable estimates of central systolic blood pressure when calibrated to invasive pressure, but underestimates it when calibrated to brachial blood pressure, offering a simple alternative to tonometry-based methods.
Pucci et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac angiography patients and healthy individuals (n=140). Vicorder vs. SphygmoCor and invasive central blood pressure was evaluated on Difference in estimated central systolic blood pressure compared to invasive measurement (calibrated to invasive MAP/DBP) (p=<0.001). The Vicorder device underestimated central systolic blood pressure by 4.0 ± 7.4 mmHg compared to invasive measurements when calibrated to invasive MAP/DBP (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: