Key result
A generalized radial-aortic transfer function showed systematic errors in reconstructing central pressure waveforms and inaccurate aortic augmentation index compared to direct measurement.
Why the study?
Does a generalized radial-aortic transfer function accurately reconstruct central aortic waveform parameters compared to direct invasive measurement in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
RCT (n=93)
Randomized to derivation or validation group
Does a generalized radial-aortic transfer function accurately reconstruct central aortic waveform parameters compared to direct invasive measurement in patients undergoing coronary procedures?
Generalized radial-aortic transfer functions exhibit systematic errors and inaccurately estimate aortic augmentation index compared to direct invasive measurements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution against relying on generalized transfer functions for central hemodynamics; challenges their validity and leaves open need for individualized validation.
OBJECTIVE: Arterial transfer functions (TFs) describe the relationship between the pressure waveform at different arterial sites. Generalized TFs are used to reconstruct central aortic waveforms from non-invasively obtained peripheral waveforms and have been promoted as potentially clinically useful. A limitation is the paucity of information on their 'generalizability' with no information existing on the number of subjects required to construct a satisfactory TF, nor is adequate prospective validation available. We therefore investigated the uniformity of radial-aortic TFs and prospectively estimated the capacity of a generalized TF to reconstruct individual central blood pressure parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-three subjects (64 male) were studied by simultaneous radial applanation and high-fidelity (Millar Mikro-tip catheter) direct measurement of central aortic BP during elective coronary procedures. Subjects were prospectively randomized to either a derivation or validation group. RESULTS: Increasing numbers of individual TFs from the derivation group were averaged to form a generalized TF. There was minimal change with greater than 20 TFs averaged. In the validation group, the error in most reconstructed parameters related to the absolute value of the directly measured parameter [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure, P<0.05; systolic pressure-time interval, subendocardial viability index, augmentation index, and times to the inflection point, peak and end systole, all P<0.01]. Aorto-radial delay was related to error in reconstructed central aortic SBP and pulse pressure (negatively) and time to peak systole (positively) (all P<0.001). Reconstruction of augmentation index was poor. DISCUSSION: Inclusion of more than 20 individual TFs in the construction of a generalized TF does not improve 'generalizability'. There appear to be systematic errors in derived central pressure waveforms and derived aortic augmentation index is inaccurate compared to the directly measured value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hope et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Undergoing elective coronary procedures (n=93). Generalized radial-aortic transfer function vs. Directly measured central aortic blood pressure was evaluated on Error in reconstructed central blood pressure parameters (p=<0.05). A generalized radial-aortic transfer function showed systematic errors in reconstructing central pressure waveforms and inaccurate aortic augmentation index compared to direct measurement.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: