Why the study?
The standard formula to predict mean arterial pressure is limited by inaccuracy associated with heart rate and pulse pressure.
Does a combined formula improve the accuracy of mean arterial pressure estimation compared to standard formulas in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Does a combined formula improve the accuracy of mean arterial pressure estimation compared to standard formulas in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
A novel combined formula incorporating heart rate and pulse pressure corrections provides a more accurate estimation of mean arterial pressure than standard formulas.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
New MAP formula incorporating HR/PP needs validation; leaves open whether it improves accuracy over standard methods in practice.
BACKGROUND: We demonstrate a new formula to predict mean arterial pressure (MAP) using corrections of the key factors associated with the inaccuracy of the standard formula: heart rate (HR) and pulse pressure (PP). METHODS: A total of 99 patients (50 men, 49 women; mean age 52.5 ± 10.3 years), who underwent elective coronary angiography, were enrolled in our study. The arterial pressure was measured in the aortic root. MAP was measured digitally by the area-under-the-pressure-time curve method. We evaluated the accuracy of four different formulas: the standard formula, the formula of Razminia et al., the formula of Meaney et al. and the combined formula. RESULTS: PP coefficient deviation of the standard formula was negatively correlated with PP (R = -0,561, P < 0.001), and positively correlated with HR (R = 0,298, P = 0.003). Both R and R2 values of the combined formula were higher than previous formulas. Accuracy parameters of the combined formula [root mean square error (RMSE): 1.801 mmHg, mean square residuals (MSR): 3.244 mmHg2, Akaike information criterion (AIC): 401.4] were superior to the standard formula (RMSE: 1.902 mmHg, MSR: 3.620 mmHg2, AIC: 412.3), the formula of Razminia et al. (RMSE: 2.022 mmHg, MSR: 4.089 mmHg2, AIC: 424.3) and the formula of Meaney et al. (RMSE: 2.137 mmHg, MSR: 4.568 mmHg2, AIC: 435.3). In the multivariate linear regression analysis, the combined formula was the only method that independently predicts the measured MAP (beta = 0,990, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The combined formula is superior to previous formulas for accurately predicting MAP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaypaklı et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: