Artery Research

<Previous Article In Issue
Download article (PDF)
Next Article In Issue>
Volume 20, Issue C, December 2017, Pages 52 - 52

2.8 INVASIVE STUDY FOR TESTING NON-INVASIVE METHODS OF AORTIC PRESSURE ESTIMATION

Authors
Andrea Guala1, F. Tosello2, D. Leone2, L. Sabia2, F. D’Ascenzo3, T. Crea2, C. Moretti3, F. Gaita3, F. Veglio2, L. Ridolfi4, A. Milan2
1Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
2Internal and Hypertension Division, Department of Medical Sciences, AOU Citta’ della Salute e della Scienza of Turin, University of Turin, Torino, Italy
3Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical Sciences, AOU Citta’ della Salute e della Scienza of Turin, University of Turin, Torino, Italy
4DIATI, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
Available Online 6 December 2017.
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2017.10.030How to use a DOI?
Abstract

Purpose: Aortic blood pressure has a superior prognostic value with respect to the brachial pressure [ 1]. Nonetheless, the low efficacy of the most used non-invasive methods (i.e., approaches based on the generalized transfer function (GTF)) may hamper the detection of this superiority in population studies [2]. In this sense, low-order, patient-specific whole-body mathematical models might help to bridge brachial to aortic pressure waveforms. We aimed to compare (i) GTF, (ii) a patient-specific 1D-0D mathematical model, and (iii) brachial blood pressure in the estimation of invasive aortic pressure measured through catheter.

Method: One-hundred patients referred to diagnostic coronary angiography were included in this study. Brachial pressure was measured with a validated automatic oscillometric device simultaneously to invasive aortic pressure, which was measured with a calibrated fluid-filled catheter. End-systolic and end-diastolic left ventricular volumes, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and tonometric radial waveform were measured immediately prior to the invasive procedure and were used to set GTF and the mathematical model.

Results: Oscillometric brachial pressure overestimated both systolic (2.4 ± 12.6 mmHg, R2 = 0.71) and diastolic (3.7 ± 9.8 mmHg, R2 = 0.48) aortic pressure. GTF method underestimated systolic (9.4 ± 11 mmHg, R2 = 0.71) and overestimated diastolic (4.5 ± 10.2 mmHg, R2 = 0.4) aortic pressure. Mathematical model underestimated both systolic (4 ± 16.5 mmHg, R2 = 0.47) and diastolic (3.9 ± 10.4 mmHg, R2 = 0.62) aortic pressure. Brachial pressure and GTF methods presented trends toward systolic and diastolic pressure overestimation for higher aortic pressure, while mathematical modeling not.

Conclusions: Systolic and diastolic oscillometric brachial pressures give a better predictor of aortic pressure extremes with respect to both GTF- and mathematical model-based methods.

Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

References

1.SS Franklin et al., Value of brachial and central blood pressure for predicting cardiovascular events, ME Safar, MF O’Rourke, and ED Frohlich (editors), Blood pressure and arterial wall mechanics in cardiovascular diseases, Springer London, London, 2014.
2.Narayan, J Casan, M Szarski, AM Dart, IT Meredith, and JD Cameron, Estimation of central aortic blood pressure: a systematic meta-analysis of available techniques, J Hypertens, Vol. 32, No. 9, Sep 2014, pp. 1727-40.
<Previous Article In Issue
Download article (PDF)
Next Article In Issue>
Journal
Artery Research
Volume-Issue
20 - C
Pages
52 - 52
Publication Date
2017/12/06
ISSN (Online)
1876-4401
ISSN (Print)
1872-9312
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2017.10.030How to use a DOI?
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Cite this article

risenwbib
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Andrea Guala
AU  - F. Tosello
AU  - D. Leone
AU  - L. Sabia
AU  - F. D’Ascenzo
AU  - T. Crea
AU  - C. Moretti
AU  - F. Gaita
AU  - F. Veglio
AU  - L. Ridolfi
AU  - A. Milan
PY  - 2017
DA  - 2017/12/06
TI  - 2.8 INVASIVE STUDY FOR TESTING NON-INVASIVE METHODS OF AORTIC PRESSURE ESTIMATION
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 52
EP  - 52
VL  - 20
IS  - C
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2017.10.030
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2017.10.030
ID  - Guala2017
ER  -