首页> 外文期刊>The journal of clinical hypertension. >Comparison of two noninvasive devices for measurement of central systolic blood pressure with invasive measurement during cardiac catheterization
【24h】

Comparison of two noninvasive devices for measurement of central systolic blood pressure with invasive measurement during cardiac catheterization

机译:心脏导管插入术中两种用于测量中心收缩压的无创设备与有创测量的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Recently, a new device for noninvasive assessment of central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) (BPro device with A-Pulse) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, but available data are limited. In 52 patients undergoing invasive elective cardiac evaluation, central hemodynamics were measured invasively. Immediately thereafter, radial artery waveforms were sampled by two noninvasive techniques, the BPro and, as a comparator, the SphygmoCor System. Then, central hemodynamics were measured invasively for a second time. The invasively recorded cSBP (137±27mmHg) did not differ with both noninvasively assessed cSBP by BPro (136±21mmHg, P=.627 vs invasive cSBP) and by SphygmoCor (136 ±23mmHg, P=.694 vs invasive cSBP) and correlated highly between invasively recorded and both noninvasively assessed cSBP. However, using Bland-Altman plots, spreading of compared data of both devices can be found (BPro: 0.87±13mmHg vs invasive cSBP; SphygmoCor: 0.77±14mmHg vs invasive cSBP). There was an excellent correlation of both noninvasive devices for the calculation of cSBP (r=0.961, P<.001). cSBP differed by only 0.1±6mmHg (P=.913) between the two noninvasive devices. Therefore, both noninvasive devices showed an accurate agreement in cSBP compared with invasively measured cSBP.
机译:最近,美国食品和药物管理局批准了一种用于无创评估中心收缩压(cSBP)的新设备(带有A-Pulse的BPro设备),但可用数据有限。在接受侵入性择期心脏评估的52例患者中,有创地测量了中心血液动力学。此后立即通过两种非侵入性技术,即BPro和作为比较器的SphygmoCor System,对radial动脉波形进行采样。然后,第二次有创地测量中心血液动力学。创记录的cSBP(137±27mmHg)与BPro(136±21mmHg,P = .627 vs创cSBP)和SphygmoCor(136±23mmHg,P = .694 vs创cSBP)的无创评估cSBP均无差异在有创记录的cSBP和无创评估的cSBP之间都很高。但是,使用Bland-Altman图,可以找到两种设备的比较数据的分布(BPro:相对于有创cSBP为0.87±13mmHg; SphygmoCor:相对于有创cSBP为0.77±14mmHg)。两种非侵入性设备在计算cSBP方面具有极好的相关性(r = 0.961,P <.001)。两种无创器械之间的cSBP相差仅0.1±6mmHg(P = .913)。因此,与有创测量的cSBP相比,两种无创设备在cSBP中均显示出准确的一致性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号