Key result
The oscillometric method for determining aortic systolic pressure correlated significantly with the validated tonometric method (r=0.9796, P<0.0001), with a mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg.
Why the study?
Does oscillometric pulse wave velocity measurement accurately determine aortic blood pressure compared to a validated tonometric pulse wave analysis system in patients with cardiovascular risk factors?
Population
49 patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus.
Comparison
Non-invasive determination of aortic blood… vs Validated tonometric pulse wave analysis system.
Design
Cross-sectional, Randomised order of device testing
Authors
Loading...
Supports oscillometric aortic pressure assessment in at-risk patients; leaves open routine adoption pending prospective validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=49)
Randomized order of device measurements
No
Does oscillometric pulse wave velocity measurement accurately determine aortic blood pressure compared to a validated tonometric pulse wave analysis system in patients with cardiovascular risk factors?
Effect estimate: r=0.9796
p-value: p=<0.0001
Oscillometric pulse wave velocity measurement provides a highly accurate, non-invasive estimation of central aortic pressures compared to applanation tonometry.
Naidu et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus (n=49). Oscillometric Pulse Wave Velocity measurement (PeriScope) vs. Tonometric pulse wave analysis system (SphygmoCor) was evaluated on Correlation of Aortic Systolic Pressure (ASP) between the two methods (r=0.9796, p=<0.0001). The oscillometric method for determining aortic systolic pressure correlated significantly with the validated tonometric method (r=0.9796, P<0.0001), with a mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: