Recently, generalised pressure transfer functions (TFF) have been proposed to estimate central aorta pressure and pulse pressure (PPao) from non-invasive carotid (TFFc-a) and radial (TFFr-a) pressure recordings. In this study, we investigate whether (i) both TFF yield the same PPao; (ii) PPao is significantly different from PPcar; (iii) differences are significant for the estimation of total arterial compliance using the Pulse Pressure Method (PPM). Therefore, ECG, radial and carotid artery pressure (Millar tonometer) and aortic flow (Doppler) were measured in 9 controls (34+/-5 yr.) and 14 patients (62+/-12 yr.). In both patients and controls, TFFc-a gave significantly lower estimates (10%) for PPao than TFFr-a. In controls, we found no difference between PPCAR and PPao computed using TFFr-a; in patients, there was no difference between PPcar and PPao computed with TFFc-a. The observed differences in computed PP were reflected in the compliance estimates using PPM. Although small, the discrepancy between PPao predicted by TFFr-a and TFFc-a illustrates the need for more individualised transfer functions. Meanwhile, the carotid pulse pressure is probably the overall best estimate for PPao.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||4|
|Journal||Computers in Cardiology|
|State||Published - Dec 1 1998|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Computer Science Applications
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine