國家衛生研究院 NHRI:Item 3990099045/6710
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 12145/12927 (94%)
Visitors : 857772      Online Users : 806
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.nhri.org.tw/handle/3990099045/6710


    Title: Measurement of central aortic pulse pressure: Noninvasive brachial cuff-based estimation by a transfer function vs. a novel pulse wave analysis method
    Authors: Cheng, HM;Sung, SH;Shih, YT;Chuang, SY;Yu, WC;Chen, CH
    Contributors: Division of Health Services and Preventive Medicine
    Abstract: Background: The prognostic value of central aortic pulse pressure (PP-C) may have been underestimated due to its measurement inaccuracy. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of noninvasive brachial cuff-based estimation of PP-C by a generalized transfer function (GTF) or a novel pulse wave analysis (PWA) approach to directly estimate PP-C. Methods: Invasive high-fidelity right brachial and central aortic pressure tracings, and left brachial pulse volume plethysmography (PVP) waveforms from an oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitor were all digitized simultaneously in 40 patients during cardiac catheterization. An aortic-to-brachial GTF and a PWA multivariate prediction model using the PVP waveforms calibrated to brachial cuff systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP(DBP) were constructed. Accuracy of the two methods was examined in another 100 patients against invasively measured PP-C. Results: The error of cuff PP in estimating PP-C was 1.8 ± 12.4 mm Hg. Application of the GTF on noninvasively calibrated PVP waveforms produced reconstructed aortic pressure waves and PP-C estimates with errors of −3.4 ± 11.6 mm Hg (PP-C = reconstructed aortic SBP − aortic DBP) and −2.3 ± 11.4 mm Hg (PP-C = reconstructed aortic SBP − cuff DBP), respectively. The observed systematic errors were proportional to the magnitudes of PP-C. In contrast, the error of the PWA prediction model was 3.0 ± 7.1 mm Hg without obvious proportional systematic error. Conclusions: Large random and systematic errors are introduced into the PP-C estimates when PP-C is calculated as the difference between the estimated central SBP and central or cuff DBP. The accuracy can be improved substantially with the novel PWA approach.
    Date: 2012-11
    Relation: American Journal of Hypertension. 2012 Nov;25(11):1162-1169.
    Link to: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2012.116
    JIF/Ranking 2023: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcAuth=NHRI&SrcApp=NHRI_IR&KeyISSN=0895-7061&DestApp=IC2JCR
    Cited Times(WOS): https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000310110800004
    Cited Times(Scopus): http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84864535299
    Appears in Collections:[Shao-Yuan Chuang] Periodical Articles

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    SCP84864535299.pdf244KbAdobe PDF395View/Open


    All items in NHRI are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    Related Items in TAIR

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback