Multiscale mathematical modeling vs. the generalized transfer function approach for aortic pressure estimation: a comparison with invasive data.

We aimed to evaluate the performance of a mathematical model and currently available non-invasive techniques (generalized transfer function (GTF) method and brachial pressure) in the estimation of aortic pressure. We also aimed to investigate error dependence on brachial pressure errors, aorta-to-brachial pressure changes and demographic/clinical conditions. Sixty-two patients referred for invasive hemodynamic evaluation were consecutively recruited. Simultaneously, the registration of the aortic pressure using a fluid-filled catheter, brachial pressure and radial tonometric waveform was recorded. Accordingly, the GTF device and mathematical model were set. Radial invasive pressure was recorded soon after aortic measurement. The average invasive aortic pressure was 141.3 ± 20.2/76 ± 12.2 mm Hg. The simultaneous brachial pressure was 144 ± 17.8/81.5 ± 11.7 mm Hg. The GTF-based and model-based aortic pressure estimates were 133.1 ± 17.3/82.4 ± 12 and 137 ± 21.6/72.2 ± 16.7 mm Hg, respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed a marked tendency to pressure overestimation for increasing absolute values, with the exclusion of mathematical model diastolic estimations. The systolic pressure was increased from the aortic to radial locations (7.5 ± 19 mm Hg), while the diastolic pressure was decreased (3.8 ± 9.8 mm Hg). The brachial pressure underestimated the systolic and overestimated diastolic intra-arterial radial pressure. GTF errors were independently correlated with the variability in pulse pressure amplification and with the brachial error. Errors of the mathematical model were related to only demographic and clinical conditions. Neither a multiscale mathematical model nor a generalized transfer function device substantially outperformed the oscillometric brachial pressure in the estimation of aortic pressure. Mathematical modeling should be improved by including further patient-specific conditions, while the variability in pulse pressure amplification may hamper the performance of the GTF method in patients at the risk of coronary artery disease.