Personalized aortic pressure waveform estimation from brachial pressure waveform using an adaptive transfer function

S Du, Y Yao, G Sun, L Wang, J Alastruey… - Computers in Biology …, 2023 - Elsevier
Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2023Elsevier
Background and objective The aortic pressure waveform (APW) provides reliable
information for the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. APW is often measured using a
generalized transfer function (GTF) applied to the peripheral pressure waveform acquired
noninvasively, to avoid the significant risks of invasive APW acquisition. However, the GTF
ignores various physiological conditions, which affects the accuracy of the estimated APW.
To solve this problem, this study utilized an adaptive transfer function (ATF) combined with a …
Background and objective
The aortic pressure waveform (APW) provides reliable information for the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. APW is often measured using a generalized transfer function (GTF) applied to the peripheral pressure waveform acquired noninvasively, to avoid the significant risks of invasive APW acquisition. However, the GTF ignores various physiological conditions, which affects the accuracy of the estimated APW. To solve this problem, this study utilized an adaptive transfer function (ATF) combined with a tube-load model to achieve personalized and accurate estimation of APW from the brachial pressure waveform (BPW).
Methods
The proposed method was validated using APWs and BPWs from 34 patients. The ATF was defined using a tube-load model in which pulse transit time and reflection coefficients were determined from, respectively, the diastolic-exponential-pressure-decay of the APW and a piece-wise constant approximation. The root-mean-square-error of overall morphology, mean absolute errors of common hemodynamic indices (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure) were used to evaluate the ATF.
Results
The proposed ATF performed better in estimating diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure (1.63 versus 1.94 mmHg, and 2.37 versus 3.10 mmHg, respectively, both P < 0.10), and produced similar errors in overall morphology and systolic blood pressure (3.91 versus 4.24 mmHg, and 2.83 versus 2.91 mmHg, respectively, both P > 0.10) compared to GTF.
Conclusion
Unlike the GTF which uses fixed parameters trained on existing clinical datasets, the proposed method can achieve personalized estimation of APW. Hence, it provides accurate pulsatile hemodynamic measures for the evaluation of cardiovascular function.
Elsevier
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果