NDLI: P2.38 Comparison Between Two Indirect Methods for Pulse Waveform Analysis

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Ramos, C. Lonati, L. Bilo, G. Faini, A. Cardona, E. Parati, G.
Abstract	Introduction The prognostic value of arterial stiffness has been shown in different groups of patients and also in apparently healthy populations. Several studies have already pointed out the prognostic importance of central Systolic Blood Pressure (cSBP) Aim To compare two devices that use indirect methods to asses central blood pressure: The SphygmoCor and OMROM HEM-9000AI. Inclusion criteria Age ≥18 years, Males and females, Arterial Hypertension Methods Eighty-four hypertensive subjects, mean age 58 ± 12 years were examined. Radial artery waveform recording at the left wrist was performed, patients with arrhythmias, severe hypertension, absence of radial pulse, diabetes were excluded. Statistical software version 9.0 was used. Pearson’s correlations and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between methods. Results cSBP measured with both devices values showed a significant correlation, r = 0.76; r2 = 0.58. cSBP values recorded with OMRON device were 16 mmHg higher (SD of difference = 13 mmHg) cSBP (Sphy) and pSBP2 (Omr) values showed a significant correlation (r = 0.74; r2 = 0.55, P <0.001) (Figure 1) mean difference was of −0.8 , SD = 13 mmHg. Conclusion When compared both devices they offer discordant results, and this discrepancy tends to be larger at higher BP levels. In absence of invasive measurements of central aortic pressure, it is impossible to conclude which of the two systems provides cSBP values closer to true aortic cSBP. Our data suggest that pSBP2 reported by the Omron device more closely reflects the cSBP value assessed by the Sphygmocor device.
Related Links	https://arteryresearch.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.118.pdf
Ending Page	174
Page Count	1
Starting Page	174
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	18764401
DOI	10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.118
Journal	Artery Research
Issue Number	4
Volume Number	6
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2012-11-17
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Synopsis
Subject	Physiology (medical) Physiology
Journal Impact Factor	0.9/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	0.7/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

P2.12: Non-Invasive Estimates of Cardiac Output: Comparison of a Novel Pulse Waveform Analysis Method with Inert Gas Re-Breathing

P61 Comparison of Two Oscillometric Technics for Measuring Pulse Wave Velocity

P48 Comparison Between Invasive and Non-Invasive Methods: To Evaluate Aortic Stiffness by Pulse Wave Velocity

P11.5 Cardiac and Vascular Tissue Properties Determine the Central Blood Pressure Waveform: Consequences for Pulse Wave Analysis

P2.31 Comparison of Two Noninvasive Measurements for Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity: Vasera Versus Sphygmocor

P.037 Pressure Waveform Estimation in the Common Carotid Artery — Different Methods in Comparison

P2.38 The Anril Locus on Chromosome 9P21 Affects Stiffness of the Abdominal Aorta

P2.39 Assessment of Flow Mediated Dilation. Comparison Between Two Methods Art Lab Vs. Fmd Studio

1.2 Associations Between Indicators of Cardiovascular Disease and Pulse Wave Analysis and Velocity: A Comparison of Devices

P2.38 Comparison Between Two Indirect Methods for Pulse Waveform Analysis

Similar Documents

P2.12: Non-Invasive Estimates of Cardiac Output: Comparison of a Novel Pulse Waveform Analysis Method with Inert Gas Re-Breathing

P61 Comparison of Two Oscillometric Technics for Measuring Pulse Wave Velocity

P48 Comparison Between Invasive and Non-Invasive Methods: To Evaluate Aortic Stiffness by Pulse Wave Velocity

P11.5 Cardiac and Vascular Tissue Properties Determine the Central Blood Pressure Waveform: Consequences for Pulse Wave Analysis

P2.31 Comparison of Two Noninvasive Measurements for Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity: Vasera Versus Sphygmocor

P.037 Pressure Waveform Estimation in the Common Carotid Artery — Different Methods in Comparison

P2.38 The Anril Locus on Chromosome 9P21 Affects Stiffness of the Abdominal Aorta

P2.39 Assessment of Flow Mediated Dilation. Comparison Between Two Methods Art Lab Vs. Fmd Studio

1.2 Associations Between Indicators of Cardiovascular Disease and Pulse Wave Analysis and Velocity: A Comparison of Devices

P2.38 Comparison Between Two Indirect Methods for Pulse Waveform Analysis