Key result
An artificial intelligence model incorporating brachial blood pressure, heart rate, age, and pulse wave velocity strongly correlated with simulated invasive left ventricular end-systolic pressure (r=0.994) and yielded smaller average error than commonly used brachial blood pressure-only equations.
Why the study?
Estimating LV end-systolic pressure from brachial blood pressure alone does not account for factors modulating pressure waveform propagation, notably arterial stiffness.
Does an AI-enabled model incorporating multiple hemodynamic parameters improve the non-invasive prediction of left ventricular end-systolic pressure compared to brachial BP-only equations in an in silico healthy cohort?
Observational (n=3,837)
Does an AI-enabled model incorporating multiple hemodynamic parameters improve the non-invasive prediction of left ventricular end-systolic pressure compared to brachial BP-only equations in an in silico healthy cohort?
An AI-enabled multiparametric approach incorporating arterial stiffness and age provides more accurate, less biased non-invasive estimates of left ventricular end-systolic pressure across the lifespan than traditional brachial blood pressure-only equations in an in silico model.
Standard non-invasive LV PVL estimation from brachial BP alone risks inaccuracy from waveform modulation; leaves open validation of central-pressure adjustments.
Background Invasive pressure–volume loop (PVL) analysis is the gold standard method to quantify myocardial physiology. To enhance broader clinical applicability, non-invasive approaches to derive left ventricular (LV) PVLs have gained prominence, typically estimating LV end-systolic pressure (ESP) from brachial blood pressure (BP) alone. However, this approach does not account for factors that may modulate the pressure waveform as it propagates from the LV to the brachial artery, notably arterial stiffness. We trained an artificial-intelligence (AI) model to predict invasive LVESP from a set of non-invasive hemodynamic parameters and compared its performance with commonly used equations for estimating LVESP using solely brachial BPs. Methods An in silico cohort of healthy adults ( N = 3,837, age: 48.6 ± 17.0y), previously shown to have good agreement for aortic and brachial BP with in vivo data, was split into training and validation cohorts using an internal hold-out validation approach. Clinically relevant parameters were selected as inputs to a random forest machine learning model. Results The best performing model included systolic and diastolic brachial BP, heart rate, age, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), and reliably predicted LVESP (root mean square error: 0.99 mmHg). AI-derived LVESP correlated more strongly with simulated invasive LVESP (r = 0.994) than commonly used equations (r = 0.909–0.908). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated significant bias in brachial BP-only equations (mean bias: -4.01, limits of agreement [LoA] [± 1.96 standard deviations]: -11.1 to 3.06 mmHg), with the direction of bias varying across different ages. AI-derived LVESP displayed smaller bias (mean bias: 0.002, LoA: -1.94 to 1.94 mmHg) and had negligible age-related bias across the lifespan. Conclusions In this hypothesis generating study, a novel non-invasive, AI-enabled approach to LVESP quantification incorporating age, PWV and other key hemodynamic parameters alongside brachial BPs yielded smaller average error across the lifespan than commonly used brachial BP-only equations. These results warrant validation in vivo to ascertain real-world predictive performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Long et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Healthy adults (in silico cohort) (n=3,837). Artificial intelligence model incorporating brachial blood pressure, heart rate, age, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity vs. Commonly used equations for estimating LVESP using solely brachial blood pressures was evaluated on Correlation with simulated invasive left ventricular end-systolic pressure (p=<0.001). An artificial intelligence model incorporating brachial blood pressure, heart rate, age, and pulse wave velocity strongly correlated with simulated invasive left ventricular end-systolic pressure (r=0.994) and yielded smaller average error than commonly used brachial blood pressure-only equations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: