Central pressure appraisal: Clinical validation of a subject-specific mathematical model

4Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction Current evidence suggests that aortic blood pressure has a superior prognostic value with respect to brachial pressure for cardiovascular events, but direct measurement is not feasible in daily clinical practice. Aim The aim of the present study is the clinical validation of a multiscale mathematical model for non-invasive appraisal of central blood pressure from subject-specific characteristics. Methods A total of 51 young male were selected for the present study. Aortic systolic and diastolic pressure were estimated with a mathematical model and were compared to the most-used non-invasive validated technique (SphygmoCor device, AtCor Medical, Australia). SphygmoCor was calibrated through diastolic and systolic brachial pressure obtained with a sphygmomanometer, while model inputs consist of brachial pressure, height, weight, age, left-ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, and data from a pulse wave velocity study. Results Model-estimated systolic and diastolic central blood pressures resulted to be significantly related to SphygmoCor-assessed central systolic (r = 0.65 p <0.0001) and diastolic (r = 0.84 p<0.0001) blood pressures. The model showed a significant overestimation of systolic pressure (+7.8 (-2.2;14) mmHg, p = 0.0003) and a significant underestimation of diastolic values (-3.2(-7.5;1.6), p = 0.004), which imply a significant overestimation of central pulse pressure. Interestingly, model prediction errors mirror the mean errors reported in large metaanalysis characterizing the use of the SphygmoCor when non-invasive calibration is performed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tosello, F., Guala, A., Leone, D., Camporeale, C., Bruno, G., Ridolfi, L., … Milan, A. (2016). Central pressure appraisal: Clinical validation of a subject-specific mathematical model. PLoS ONE, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151523

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free