Key result
Non-contact optical carotid probe estimates central pulse pressure waveforms within ~13% error vs. invasive catheterization.
Why the study?
Does a non-contact optical probe at the carotid site accurately estimate arterial pulse pressure waveforms compared to invasive aortic catheterization in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
Does a non-contact optical probe at the carotid site accurately estimate arterial pulse pressure waveforms compared to invasive aortic catheterization in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization?
This study demonstrates that a non-contact optical probe can accurately estimate arterial pulse pressure waveforms at the carotid artery, offering a potential non-invasive alternative to catheterization.
May enable non-invasive waveform monitoring; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
The pulse pressure waveform has, for long, been known as a fundamental biomedical signal and its analysis is recognized as a non-invasive, simple, and resourceful technique for the assessment of arterial vessels condition observed in several diseases. In the current paper, waveforms from non-invasive optical probe that measures carotid artery distension profiles are compared with the waveforms of the pulse pressure acquired by intra-arterial catheter invasive measurement in the ascending aorta. Measurements were performed in a study population of 16 patients who had undergone cardiac catheterization. The hemodynamic parameters: area under the curve (AUC), the area during systole (AS) and the area during diastole (AD), their ratio (AD/AS) and the ejection time index (ETI), from invasive and non-invasive measurements were compared. The results show that the pressure waveforms obtained by the two methods are similar, with 13% of mean value of the root mean square error (RMSE). Moreover, the correlation coefficient demonstrates the strong correlation. The comparison between the AUCs allows the assessment of the differences between the phases of the cardiac cycle. In the systolic period the waveforms are almost equal, evidencing greatest clinical relevance during this period. Slight differences are found in diastole, probably due to the structural arterial differences. The optical probe has lower variability than the invasive system (13% vs 16%). This study validates the capability of acquiring the arterial pulse waveform with a non-invasive method, using a non-contact optical probe at the carotid site with residual differences from the aortic invasive measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira et al. (2014) studied Cardiovascular pathology requiring cardiac catheterization (n=16). Non-contact optical probe at the carotid site vs. Invasive intra-arterial catheter in the ascending aorta was evaluated on Mean root mean square error (RMSE) between pulse pressure waveforms. The non-contact optical probe at the carotid site estimated pulse pressure waveforms with a mean root mean square error of 13% compared to invasive aortic catheterization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: