Key result
Continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) for non-invasive blood pressure estimation yielded an RMSE of 5.36 ± 1.39 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, compared to 5.44 ± 1.56 mmHg using traditional PTT.
Why the study?
Continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) can calculate PTT from all samples within the cardiac cycle and has potential for continuous blood pressure estimation, but its feasibility needed evaluation.
Does continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) accurately estimate continuous blood pressure compared to traditional PTT and volume clamp monitoring in volunteers?
Observational (n=20)
Does continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) accurately estimate continuous blood pressure compared to traditional PTT and volume clamp monitoring in volunteers?
Continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) demonstrates feasibility for non-invasive continuous blood pressure estimation with acceptable error margins.
May support CPTT refinement of non-invasive BP monitoring; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Unlike traditional pulse transit time (PTT), continuous PTT (CPTT) can be used to calculate PTT from all samples within the cardiac cycle. It has the potential to be utilized for continuous blood pressure (BP) estimation. This study evaluated the feasibility of CPTT as a non-invasive consecutive blood pressure estimation method in 20 volunteers. The CPTT was calculated with a time delay in all discrete samples of photoplethysmograms measured at two different body sites. BP was then calculated with a regression equation. For comparative evaluation, BP based on PTT was also estimated. Continuous blood pressure was measured using a non-invasive volume clamp BP monitoring device. Four types of BP measurement, systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse pressure (PP), were estimated using PTT and CPTT. Correlation coefficients and root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) were used for evaluating BP estimation performance. For estimating SBP, DBP, PP, and MAP, PTT-based BP estimation showed correlations of .407, .373, .410, and .286, respectively, and CPTT-based BP estimation showed correlations of .436, .446, .506, and .097, respectively. With PTT-based estimation, the RMSE between the estimated BP and the baseline BP was 5.44 ± 1.56 mmHg for SBP, 3.14 ± 0.46 mmHg for DBP, 3.66 ± 0.70 mmHg for MAP, and 3.73 ± 1.31 mmHg for PP. The estimated BP using CPTT showed RMSE of 5.36 ± 1.39 mmHg for SBP, 3.02 ± 0.49 mmHg for SBP, 3.44 ± 0.63 mmHg for MAP, and 3.91 ± 1.41 mmHg for PP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hang‐Sik Shin (2022) reported an observational. Continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) vs. Traditional pulse transit time (PTT) was evaluated on Blood pressure estimation performance (correlation coefficients and root-mean-squared-error). Continuous pulse transit time (CPTT) for non-invasive blood pressure estimation yielded an RMSE of 5.36 ± 1.39 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, compared to 5.44 ± 1.56 mmHg using traditional PTT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: