Why the study?
Does radiofrequency ultrasound wall tracking of the carotid artery accurately estimate central aortic systolic blood pressure compared to invasive measurement and radial tonometry in children?
Does radiofrequency ultrasound wall tracking of the carotid artery accurately estimate central aortic systolic blood pressure compared to invasive measurement and radial tonometry in children?
Carotid ultrasound wall tracking provides an accurate noninvasive estimation of central aortic systolic blood pressure in children when calibrated with peripheral pressures.
May support noninvasive cSBP estimation in children; leaves open prospective outcome validation before adoption.
Differences between central aortic root (c) and peripheral (p) systolic blood pressure (SBP) may be particularly marked in children, but noninvasive methods for assessing cSBP in children have not been validated. We compared estimates of cSBP obtained from radiofrequency ultrasound wall tracking of the carotid artery (ART.LAB system) with that measured directly by a catheter in the aortic root at the time of arterial cannulation. Carotid waveforms were calibrated from invasive measurements of mean and diastolic pressures. In 9 children aged 10.5 ± 5.0 years (mean ± SD), cSBP obtained from carotid wall tracking was highly correlated with invasive measures of cSBP (r=0.99) with mean (± SD) difference 3.9 ± 2.5 mm Hg. Second, we compared values of cSBP obtained from the carotid with those obtained using noninvasive applanation tonometry at the radial artery and a radial-to-aortic transfer function (SphygmoCor). Both carotid and radial tonometric measurements were calibrated from the same peripheral mean and diastolic measurements of blood pressure obtained by sphygmomanometry. In 84 children aged 13.2 ± 3.2 years, there was excellent agreement between the 2 methods (r=0.95; P<0.001) with mean difference 0.71 ± 3.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval =-1.53 to 1.01). This invasive validation study confirms that cSBP as estimated by carotid wall tracking provides an acceptable measurement of true cSBP when calibration is from true mean and diastolic pressures. Close agreement of cSBP obtained by carotid wall tracking and radial tonometry suggests that these provide similar results when calibrated from the same peripheral blood pressure measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milne et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: