Why the study?
Accurate pulse transit time estimation is universally employed for cuffless blood pressure monitoring, prompting a comparison between optically and mechanically derived measurements.
Does mechanically derived PTT using BPP sensors differ from optically derived PTT using PPG sensors for cuffless blood pressure estimation?
Does mechanically derived PTT using BPP sensors differ from optically derived PTT using PPG sensors for cuffless blood pressure estimation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mechanically derived pulse transit time using BPP sensors yields significantly higher values than optically derived PPG sensors, which may impact the accuracy of cuffless blood pressure estimation technologies.
We perform a novel comparative analysis between optically and mechanically derived pulse transit time (PTT) that is universally employed technique for cuffless blood pressure (BP) estimation. Two inline photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensors were placed at the distal and proximal phalanxes of the index finger and two finger ballistocardiogram (BPP) sensors were wrapped on top of the PPG sensors fixture around the phalanxes of the index finger. The stacking of the BPP sensor over the PPG sensor provided vertical spatial alignment for same location acquisition of the blood flow waveform through the radial artery. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) between PTT derived from the PPG and BPP sensors resulted in a statistically significant difference atp< 0.05. The PTT derived from the BPP sensors showed higher values,17.8 milliseconds on average, than the PTT derived from the PPG sensors. Higher accuracy PTT values will improve the estimation of cuffless BP and thus has the potential to revolutionize the technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Janjua et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: