Cargando…

Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure

BACKGROUND: There are six different formulae for estimating mean arterial pressure (MAP) from systolic and diastolic pressure readings. This study is to determine the optimum formula for calculating MAP when compared to the gold standard approach, which is the area under the curve of an invasively m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tien, Liam Y H, Morgan, William H, Cringle, Stephen J, Yu, Dao-Yi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10200551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36945835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpad026
_version_ 1785045117825974272
author Tien, Liam Y H
Morgan, William H
Cringle, Stephen J
Yu, Dao-Yi
author_facet Tien, Liam Y H
Morgan, William H
Cringle, Stephen J
Yu, Dao-Yi
author_sort Tien, Liam Y H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are six different formulae for estimating mean arterial pressure (MAP) from systolic and diastolic pressure readings. This study is to determine the optimum formula for calculating MAP when compared to the gold standard approach, which is the area under the curve of an invasively measured pulse waveform divided by the cardiac cycle duration. METHODS: Eight live pigs were used as the experimental model for the invasive measurement of femoral artery pressure (AP) by a fluid filled catheter connected with a pressure transducer. In addition, intraocular pressure (IOP) and jugular vein pressure (JVP) were also recorded. The mean pressure (MP) was calculated from digital waveforms sampled at 1,000 points per second with the six formulae and area method for AP, IOP and JVP. RESULTS: The absolute mean difference between the area MAP and each formula’s MAP ranged from 0.98 to 3.23 mm Hg. Our study also found that even under physiological conditions, area MAP can vary between successive pulses by up to 5 mm Hg. For mean IOP and JVP, the mean difference between a formula’s MP and the area method’s was less than 1 mm Hg for most formulae. With the pooled data, there was excellent agreement amongst all formulae for MAP with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.97 to 0.99, while the ICC of most formulae for IOP and JVP was 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that all current formulae are adequate for estimating MAP, though some formulae are not suitable for mean IOP and JVP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10200551
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102005512023-05-22 Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure Tien, Liam Y H Morgan, William H Cringle, Stephen J Yu, Dao-Yi Am J Hypertens Original Contributions BACKGROUND: There are six different formulae for estimating mean arterial pressure (MAP) from systolic and diastolic pressure readings. This study is to determine the optimum formula for calculating MAP when compared to the gold standard approach, which is the area under the curve of an invasively measured pulse waveform divided by the cardiac cycle duration. METHODS: Eight live pigs were used as the experimental model for the invasive measurement of femoral artery pressure (AP) by a fluid filled catheter connected with a pressure transducer. In addition, intraocular pressure (IOP) and jugular vein pressure (JVP) were also recorded. The mean pressure (MP) was calculated from digital waveforms sampled at 1,000 points per second with the six formulae and area method for AP, IOP and JVP. RESULTS: The absolute mean difference between the area MAP and each formula’s MAP ranged from 0.98 to 3.23 mm Hg. Our study also found that even under physiological conditions, area MAP can vary between successive pulses by up to 5 mm Hg. For mean IOP and JVP, the mean difference between a formula’s MP and the area method’s was less than 1 mm Hg for most formulae. With the pooled data, there was excellent agreement amongst all formulae for MAP with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.97 to 0.99, while the ICC of most formulae for IOP and JVP was 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that all current formulae are adequate for estimating MAP, though some formulae are not suitable for mean IOP and JVP. Oxford University Press 2023-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10200551/ /pubmed/36945835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpad026 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Contributions
Tien, Liam Y H
Morgan, William H
Cringle, Stephen J
Yu, Dao-Yi
Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title_full Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title_fullStr Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title_full_unstemmed Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title_short Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure
title_sort optimal calculation of mean pressure from pulse pressure
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10200551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36945835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpad026
work_keys_str_mv AT tienliamyh optimalcalculationofmeanpressurefrompulsepressure
AT morganwilliamh optimalcalculationofmeanpressurefrompulsepressure
AT cringlestephenj optimalcalculationofmeanpressurefrompulsepressure
AT yudaoyi optimalcalculationofmeanpressurefrompulsepressure