Why the study?
Does estimation of central SBP from the late systolic shoulder (SBP(2)) of a peripheral pulse provide comparable accuracy to a generalized transfer function when compared to invasive aortic measurement?
Does estimation of central SBP from the late systolic shoulder (SBP(2)) of a peripheral pulse provide comparable accuracy to a generalized transfer function when compared to invasive aortic measurement?
SBP(2) provides a simple measure of central SBP with comparable accuracy to a generalized transfer function, though noninvasive calibration increases variability.
SBP(2) may offer a simpler cSBP estimate with comparable accuracy; leaves open clinical utility pending noninvasive validation and outcome data.
OBJECTIVE: To compare estimation of central cSBP by application of a generalized transfer function (GTF) to a peripheral arterial waveform and from the late systolic shoulder (SBP(2)) of such a waveform and assess errors introduced by noninvasive calibration of the waveform. METHODS: The digital arterial pulse was acquired noninvasively with a servo-controlled finger cuff. A high fidelity pressure tipped catheter was placed in the proximal aortic root. Measurements were made at baseline (n = 40), after nitrovasodilation, handgrip exercise (n = 18) and during pacing (n = 10). Estimates of cSBP obtained using a GTF and from SBP(2) (using an algorithm applied to individual cardiac cycles) of the digital arterial waveform were compared with values measured at the aortic root. RESULTS: When arterial waveforms were calibrated from aortic intra-arterial mean and DBP there was close agreement between estimated and measured cSBP: mean difference between estimated and measured cSBP (SD): 1.0 (5.7) and -0.7 (5.5) mmHg for GTF and SBP(2), respectively. Noninvasive oscillometric calibration increased variability in estimation of cSBP [mean difference, 1.3 (11) mmHg for SBP(2)] but estimates of the cSBP to peripheral systolic pressure increment from oscillometric calibration of SBP(2) agreed well with those obtained using invasive calibration [mean difference -2.4 (6.1) mmHg]. CONCLUSION: SBP(2) potentially provides a simple measure of cSBP and is of comparable accuracy to a GTF. Noninvasive calibration increases variability for both methods but has less effect on the cSBP to peripheral SBP increment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guilcher et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: