Why the study?
Most existing pulse transit time to blood pressure calibration models require multiple measurements to personalize, driving the need for a physical model enabling one-point calibration.
Does a physical model-based approach to one-point PTT-BP calibration improve blood pressure estimation accuracy compared to empiric linear calibration in healthy young volunteers?
Does a physical model-based approach to one-point PTT-BP calibration improve blood pressure estimation accuracy compared to empiric linear calibration in healthy young volunteers?
A novel physical model-based approach enables more accurate one-point calibration of pulse transit time to blood pressure compared to empiric linear calibration.
Facilitates 1-point PTT-BP calibration in human studies; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel physical model-based approach to enable 1-point calibration of pulse transit time (PTT) to blood pressure (BP). METHODS: The proposed PTT-BP calibration model is derived by combining the Bramwell-Hill equation and a phenomenological model of the arterial compliance (AC) curve. By imposing a physiologically plausible constraint on the skewness of AC at positive and negative transmural pressures, the number of tunable parameters in the PTT-BP calibration model reduces to 1. Hence, as opposed to most existing PTT-BP calibration models requiring multiple (≥2) PTT-BP measurements to personalize, the PTT-BP calibration model can be personalized to an individual subject using a single PTT-BP measurement pair. Equipped with the physically relevant PTT-AC and AC-BP relationships, the proposed approach may serve as a universal means to calibrate PTT to BP over a wide BP range. The validity and proof-of-concept of the proposed approach were evaluated using PTT and BP measurements collected from 22 healthy young volunteers undergoing large BP changes. RESULTS: The proposed approach modestly yet significantly outperformed an empiric linear PTT-BP calibration with a group-average slope and subject-specific intercept in terms of bias (5.5 mmHg vs 6.4 mmHg), precision (8.4 mmHg vs 9.4 mmHg), mean absolute error (7.8 mmHg vs 8.8 mmHg), and root-mean-squared error (8.7 mmHg vs 10.3 mmHg, all in the case of diastolic BP). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the preliminary proof-of-concept of an innovative physical model-based approach to one-point PTT-BP calibration. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed physical model-based approach has the potential to enable more accurate and convenient calibration of PTT to BP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mousavi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: