Key result
Noninvasive central aortic pressure estimation via generalized transfer function yields errors equivalent to oscillometric monitors, with SBP-C error highly correlated to SBP-O error (r=0.88, P<0.01).
Why the study?
Does noninvasive estimation using a generalized transfer function accurately reflect invasively measured central aortic blood pressures in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Population
40 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization
Comparison
Noninvasive estimation of central aortic… vs Invasively measured central aortic and right…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Central pressure estimates via transfer function show no accuracy advantage over oscillometric monitors; leaves open their incremental clinical value pending prospective validation.
Observational (n=40)
Does noninvasive estimation using a generalized transfer function accurately reflect invasively measured central aortic blood pressures in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Effect estimate: r = 0.88
p-value: p=<0.01
Noninvasive transfer function techniques produce estimates of central aortic blood pressures with errors equivalent to those of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor used for calibration.
Shih et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (n=40). Generalized transfer function technique vs. Invasive central aortic pressure measurement was evaluated on Output errors (differences between estimated and invasively measured SBP-C and PP-C) (r = 0.88, p=<0.01). Noninvasive central aortic pressure estimation via generalized transfer function yields errors equivalent to oscillometric monitors, with SBP-C error highly correlated to SBP-O error (r=0.88, P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: