...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of hypertension >Determination of central blood pressure by a noninvasive method (brachial blood pressure and QKD interval): A noninvasive validation
【24h】

Determination of central blood pressure by a noninvasive method (brachial blood pressure and QKD interval): A noninvasive validation

机译:通过无创方法(臂式血压和QKD间隔)确定中心血压:无创验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: We validated against invasive measurements a measure of central SBP based on the QKD interval. The present objective is a comparison to the SphygmoCor device. Materials and methods: A first cohort was used to redefine an algorithm for estimating ascending aorta SBP (cSBP) with respect to SphygmoCor. This algorithm was then tested in a second cohort under static conditions and in a third cohort during a head-up tilt to study blood pressure variations. Results: The first cohort (36 patients, mean age: 46±20 years, SBP: 114± 19mmHg) defined the estimation algorithm as cSBP = 62.687 + 1.35 × meanBP-0.207 × heart rate-0.251 × height-0.1 × QKD (mean difference with SphygmoCor = 0±7mmHg). In the second cohort (105 patients, mean age: 51±19 years, SBP: 132±22 mmHg), the average difference between the two techniques was 2±6mmHg (R2 = 0.93). The dynamic cohort included 31 patients (mean age: 49 ± 23 years, SBP: 110 ± 19 mmHg) with 224 pairs of measurement. We studied the changes in central blood pressures compared with the basal state of each of the two techniques during head-up tilt. With QKD, the average cSBP was 104 ±19 mmHg, the average variation was -13.00 mmHg ± 15 (range 7-74 mmHg). With SphygmoCor, average cSBP was 101 mmHg ± 18, the average variation was - 14 mmHg ± 16 (range 2-81 mmHg). The variations in blood pressure with the two techniques were well correlated (R2 = 0.93). Conclusion: cSBP estimation based on the QKD interval is comparable in precision to the SphygmoCor. Its ability to measure cSBP variations suggests that it could be employed for ambulatory measurements over 24h.
机译:目的:我们针对侵入性测量验证了基于QKD间隔的中央SBP量度。本目标是与SphygmoCor设备的比较。材料和方法:第一个队列用于重新定义算法,用于估计相对于SphygmoCor的升主动脉SBP(cSBP)。然后在静态条件下的第二个队列和抬头倾斜期间的第三个队列中测试此算法,以研究血压变化。结果:第一组(36例患者,平均年龄:46±20岁,SBP:114±19mmHg)将评估算法定义为cSBP = 62.687 + 1.35×平均BP-0.207×心率-0.251×身高-0.1×QKD(平均与SphygmoCor的差异= 0±7mmHg)。在第二个队列(105例患者,平均年龄:51±19岁,SBP:132±22 mmHg)中,两种技术之间的平均差异为2±6mmHg(R2 = 0.93)。动态队列包括31例患者(平均年龄:49±23岁,SBP:110±19 mmHg),测量224对。我们研究了在抬头倾斜过程中,与两种技术的基础状态相比,中心血压的变化。对于QKD,平均cSBP为104±19 mmHg,平均变化为-13.00 mmHg±15(范围7-74 mmHg)。对于SphygmoCor,平均cSBP为101 mmHg±18,平均变化为-14 mmHg±16(范围2-81 mmHg)。两种技术的血压变化具有良好的相关性(R2 = 0.93)。结论:基于QKD间隔的cSBP估计的精度与SphygmoCor相当。它具有测量cSBP变化的能力,表明它可以在24小时内用于动态测量。

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