首页> 外文期刊>Hypertension: An Official Journal of the American Heart Association >Central Aortic Blood Pressure From Ultrasound Wall-Tracking of the Carotid Artery in Children Comparison With Invasive Measurements and Radial Tonometry
【24h】

Central Aortic Blood Pressure From Ultrasound Wall-Tracking of the Carotid Artery in Children Comparison With Invasive Measurements and Radial Tonometry

机译:超声血管壁跟踪儿童颈动脉的中心主动脉血压与有创测量和放射线眼压测量的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Differences between central aortic root (c) and peripheral (p) systolic blood pressure (SBP) may he particularly marked in children, but noninvasive methods for assessing cSBP in children have not been validated. We compared estimates of cSBP obtained from radiofrequency ultrasound wall tracking of the carotid artery (ART,LAB system) with that measured directly by a catheter in the aortic root at the time of arterial cannulation. Carotid waveforms were calibrated from invasive measurements of mean and diastolic pressures. In 9 children aged 10.5 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- SD), cSBP obtained from carotid wall tracking was highly correlated with invasive measures of cSBP (r=0.99) with mean (+/- SD) difference 3.9 +/- 2.5 mm Hg. Second, we compared values of cSBP obtained from the carotid with those obtained using noninvasive applanation tonometry at the radial artery and a radial-to-aortic transfer function (SphygmoCor). Both carotid and radial tonometric measurements were calibrated from the same peripheral mean and diastolic measurements of blood pressure obtained by sphygmomanometry. In 84 children aged 13.2 +/- 3.2 years, there was excellent agreement between the 2 methods (r=0.95; P<0.001) with mean difference 0,71 3,7 mm Hg (954 confidence interval =-1.53 to 1,01). This invasive validation study confirms that cSBP as estimated by carotid Wall tracking provides an acceptable measurement of true cSBP when calibration is from true mean and diastolic pressures. Close agreement of cSBP obtained by carotid wall tracking and radial tonometry suggests that these provide similar results when calibrated from the same peripheral blood pressure measurements,
机译:在儿童中,主动脉主动脉根部(c)与周围(p)收缩压(SBP)之间的差异可能特别明显,但尚未验证评估儿童cSBP的非侵入性方法。我们比较了从射频超声对颈动脉的超声壁跟踪(ART,LAB系统)获得的cSBP估计值与在动脉插管时通过主动脉根部导管直接测量的cSBP估计值。从平均和舒张压的侵入性测量中校准颈动脉波形。在9个10.5 +/- 5.0岁(平均+/- SD)的儿童中,通过颈动脉壁追踪获得的cSBP与cSBP的侵入性测量高度相关(r = 0.99),平均(+/- SD)差异为3.9 +/- 2.5毫米汞柱。其次,我们比较了从颈动脉获得的cSBP值与在non动脉处使用无创压平眼压计获得的值以及a到主动脉传递函数(SphygmoCor)的值。颈动脉和径向眼压测量均通过血压计获得的相同的外周平均血压和舒张压测量进行校准。在84位13.2 +/- 3.2岁的儿童中,两种方法之间的一致性极好(r = 0.95; P <0.001),平均差异为0.71 3.7 mm Hg(954置信区间= -1.53​​至1,01 )。这项侵入性验证研究证实,当根据真实的平均压力和舒张压进行校准时,通过颈动脉壁追踪估计的cSBP可以提供可接受的真实cSBP测量值。通过颈动脉壁跟踪和径向眼压测量法获得的cSBP紧密一致,表明当根据相同的外周血压测量结果进行校准时,这些结果可提供相似的结果,

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