Why the study?
Continuous, noninvasive, and comfortable blood pressure monitoring is indispensable, motivating an investigation into the best method for obtaining highly accurate values from hemodynamic variables in young subjects.
Does a linear model improve the accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure measurement compared to exponential models in simulated and ex vivo settings?
Does a linear model improve the accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure measurement compared to exponential models in simulated and ex vivo settings?
A linear model for noninvasive blood pressure measurement using ultrasound provides highly accurate values that comply with AAMI standards, outperforming the commonly used exponential transformation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In silico BP model comparisons leave optimal noninvasive estimation open in young subjects; prospective validation needed before clinical use.
As cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are one of the most prominent illnesses, continuous, noninvasive, and comfortable monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is indispensable. This article investigates the best method for obtaining highly accurate BP values in noninvasive measurements through the extraction of hemodynamic variables from the arteries of young subjects. After the literature review, five state-of-the-art BP models were analyzed and qualitatively compared in a novel in silico study. Relevant arterial parameters such as luminal area, flow velocity, and pulse wave velocity (PWV) of 1458 subjects were extracted from a computer-simulated database and served as input parameters in the BP models’ simulation. The five models were calibrated to each arterial site. Contrary to the expected, the linear model (linear transformation of the distending diameter into BP) revealed more accuracy than the commonly used exponential transformation. In an ex vivo experimental setup, the linear model was used for the extraction of BP by using an ultrasound (US) sensor and validated with a commercial pressure sensor. The results showed an in silico pulse pressure (PP) correlation of 0.978 and a mean difference of (−2.845 ± 2.565) mmHg at the radial artery and an ex vivo PP correlation of 0.986 and a mean difference of (1.724 ± 3.291) mmHg. Thus, with the linear model, the US measurement complies with the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standard with smaller deviations than ±5 mmHg.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seabra et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: