Key result
High-frame-rate ultrasound successfully measured cuffless carotid pressure, with carotid systolic pressure measuring 11.1 mmHg lower than finger pressure during lower body negative pressure (p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Existing central blood pressure technologies rely on peripheral pressure or calibration models, compromising accuracy when interventions yield differing central and peripheral responses.
Does high-frame-rate A-mode ultrasound accurately measure central blood pressure from the carotid artery compared to continuous peripheral BP monitoring during lower body negative pressure intervention in healthy males?
Does high-frame-rate A-mode ultrasound accurately measure central blood pressure from the carotid artery compared to continuous peripheral BP monitoring during lower body negative pressure intervention in healthy males?
Mean Difference: -11.1
p-value: p=<0.0001
High-frame-rate A-mode ultrasound is a feasible method for cuffless and calibration-free measurement of central blood pressure from the carotid artery.
Hypothesis-generating for cuffless carotid ultrasound BP; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Purpose Existing technologies to measure central blood pressure (CBP) intrinsically depend on peripheral pressure or calibration models derived from it. Pharmacological or physiological interventions yielding different central and peripheral responses compromise the accuracy of such methods. We present a high-frame-rate ultrasound technology for cuffless and calibration-free evaluation of BP from the carotid artery. The system uses a pair of single-element ultrasound transducers to capture the arterial diameter and local pulse wave velocity (PWV) for the evaluation of beat-by-beat BP employing a novel biomechanical model.Materials and methods System’s functionality assessment was conducted on eight male subjects (26 ± 4 years, normotensive and no history of cardiovascular risks) by perturbing pressure via short-term moderate lower body negative pressure (LBNP) intervention (−40 mmHg for 1 min). The ability of the system to capture dynamic responses of carotid pressure to LBNP was investigated and compared against the responses of peripheral pressure measured using a continuous BP monitor.Results While the carotid pressure manifested trends similar to finger measurements during LBNP, the system also captured the differential carotid-to-peripheral pressure response, which corroborates the literature. The carotid diastolic and mean pressures agreed with the finger pressures (limits-of-agreement within ±7 mmHg) and exhibited acceptable uncertainty (mean absolute errors were 2.4 ± 3.5 and 2.6 ± 4.0 mmHg, respectively). Concurrent to the literature, the carotid systolic and pulse pressures (PPs) were significantly lower than those of the finger pressures by 11.1 ± 9.4 and 11.3 ± 8.2 mmHg, respectively (p < .0001).Conclusions The study demonstrated the method’s potential for providing cuffless and calibration-free pressure measurements while reliably capturing the physiological aspects, such as PP amplification and dynamic pressure responses to intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiran et al. (2022) studied Healthy volunteers (n=8). High-frame-rate A-mode ultrasound vs. Continuous finger blood pressure monitor was evaluated on Difference between carotid systolic pressure and finger systolic pressure (MD -11.1 mmHg, p=<0.0001). High-frame-rate ultrasound successfully measured cuffless carotid pressure, with carotid systolic pressure measuring 11.1 mmHg lower than finger pressure during lower body negative pressure (p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: