Why the study?
Does non-invasive central blood pressure estimation using the entire aortic pressure cycle accurately correlate with invasive aortic pressure measurements in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does non-invasive central blood pressure estimation using the entire aortic pressure cycle accurately correlate with invasive aortic pressure measurements in patients with coronary artery disease?
Analyzing the entire aortic pressure cycle for non-invasive central blood pressure estimation yields high correlation with invasive measurements but reveals a lower regression slope compared to mean-value methods, highlighting potential calibration differences.
Entire-cycle cBP analysis lowers regression slopes versus mean-cycle; leaves open optimal method for non-invasive validation.
Coefficient values found of the whole population, using the entire aortic pressure cycle, were similar to those obtained using the mean value of the cBP cardiac cycle was analysed (0.88 versus 0.89; respectively). On the contrary, the slope of the regression line determined by invasive versus non-invasive cBP loops (n = 20) using the entire cBP cycle exhibit a remarkable decrease with respect to that obtained using the mean aortic pressure cycle (0.98 versus 0.77).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pessana et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: