Why the study?
Does visual inspection of CardioMEMS waveforms differ from device-averaged pulmonary artery pressures in patients with heart failure?
Does visual inspection of CardioMEMS waveforms differ from device-averaged pulmonary artery pressures in patients with heart failure?
There is good agreement between device-averaged and visually inspected CardioMEMS waveforms when pressure variation is <20 mmHg and in patients without atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Device-averaged PAP agrees well with end-expiratory inspection when variation is low; leaves open whether routine visual review improves CardioMEMS accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: HF system includes device-averaged pulmonary artery pressures (PAP) and heart rate. Agreement of device-averaged values compared to the standard method of visual inspection of pressure waveforms at end-expiration is unknown. We evaluated the agreement between device-averaged and visually inspected end-expiratory PAP. APPROACH: HF system were evaluated. Eight-hundred twenty-three PAP waveforms from the Merlin remote monitoring website were visually inspected and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) and pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) at end-expiration were recorded. Waveforms were evaluated for pressure variation (PV), defined as the difference between highest and lowest PASP measurement of ⩾20 mmHg. Bland-Altman analysis quantified differences between device-averaged and visually inspected waveforms. MAIN RESULTS: All patients were NYHA functional class III, mean age was 67 ± 15 years and 15 (71%) had AF. Bland-Altman analysis of all waveforms revealed a mean-difference in PADP of -1.4 mmHg, indicating that visually inspected values were higher than device-averaged values. For PV ⩾20 mmHg, this value increased to -2.8 mmHg. The mean-difference comparing waveforms from patients with or without AF was -1.3 and -1.6 mmHg, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were >50% wider for waveforms from patients with versus without AF (10.3 versus 6.7 mmHg). SIGNIFICANCE: There is good agreement between device-averaged and visually inspected waveforms when pressure variation is <20 mmHg and for patients without atrial fibrillation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolfson et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: