Key result
An a posteriori inverse squared model estimated systolic and diastolic blood pressure from pulse arrival time with root mean squared errors of 5.49 mmHg and 3.82 mmHg, respectively, significantly outperforming population-based models.
Why the study?
Pre-ejection period (PEP) has been suggested to significantly limit blood pressure estimation using pulse arrival time (PAT), motivating an investigation into the impact of PEP on PAT and evaluation of models for blood pressure estimation.
Can pulse arrival time (PAT) or pulse transit time (PTT) accurately estimate blood pressure using population-based or a posteriori models in healthy volunteers?
Population
30 healthy volunteers
Comparison
Population-based vs a posteriori models for blood pressure estimation using PAT vs PTT during phenylephrine infusion
Design
Clinical study
Authors
Loading...
Toe PAT via PPG foot correlates best with SBP changes among cPTTs; leaves open whether it advances cuffless monitoring.
Observational (n=30)
No
Can pulse arrival time (PAT) or pulse transit time (PTT) accurately estimate blood pressure using population-based or a posteriori models in healthy volunteers?
A posteriori models utilizing individual calibration curves provide more accurate blood pressure estimations from pulse arrival time than population-based models.
Finnegan et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=30). Phenylephrine infusion vs. Baseline was evaluated on Root mean squared error (RMSE) for systolic blood pressure estimation from pulse arrival time using an a posteriori inverse squared model. An a posteriori inverse squared model estimated systolic and diastolic blood pressure from pulse arrival time with root mean squared errors of 5.49 mmHg and 3.82 mmHg, respectively, significantly outperforming population-based models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: