Key result
A noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance showed excellent correlation with conventional cardiac catheterization methods (r = 0.85).
Why the study?
Does a noninvasive technique using ultrasound and sphygmomanometry accurately measure systemic vascular resistance compared to conventional cardiac catheterization?
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Does a noninvasive technique using ultrasound and sphygmomanometry accurately measure systemic vascular resistance compared to conventional cardiac catheterization?
Effect estimate: r = 0.85
A noninvasive technique combining ultrasound and sphygmomanometry provides accurate measurements of systemic vascular resistance comparable to invasive cardiac catheterization.
May support noninvasive SVR research; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Measurement of systemic vascular resistance in man currently requires arterial and venous cannulation, so that cardiac output and mean arterial blood pressure may be simultaneously determined. This report describes a noninvasive technic for determining systemic vascular resistance (SVR n ), utilizing an ultrasonic method for cardiac output measurement, and a combination of sphygmomanometry and external carotid pulse tracing analysis for determination of mean arterial blood pressure. SVR n was measured by this technic in 18 patients and compared with systemic vascular resistance determined by conventional methods at cardiac catheterization (SVR c ). There was excellent correlation, with SVR c = 0.865 SVR n +216 and r = 0.85. The sensitivity of the method was verified in studies on 12 normal subjects in whom SVR n while supine (1235 ± 61 dyne-sec-cm –5 , mean ± se ) was less than SVR n while standing (1416 ± 81, P < 0.01) and greater than SVR n supine after amyl nitrite inhalation (652 ± 41, P < 0.0001). It is concluded that this noninvasive, simple, and safe technic should prove to be a useful bedside method for routine clinical measurement of systemic vascular resistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefadouros et al. (1973) reported a cross-sectional. Noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance vs. Conventional methods at cardiac catheterization was evaluated on Correlation between noninvasive and conventional systemic vascular resistance (r = 0.85). A noninvasive technique for determining systemic vascular resistance showed excellent correlation with conventional cardiac catheterization methods (r = 0.85).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: