ArticleBiomedicines2023
High Fidelity Pressure Wires Provide Accurate Validation of Non-Invasive Central Blood Pressure and Pulse Wave Velocity Measurements.
Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting the Windkessel Function: Toward Accessible Assessment of Central Arterial Health.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central blood pressure (cBP) is known to be a better predictor of the damage caused by hypertension in comparison with peripheral blood pressure. During cardiac catheterization, we measured cBP in the ascending aorta with a fluid-filled guiding catheter (FF) in 75 patients and with a high-fidelity micromanometer tipped wire (FFR) in 20 patients. The wire was withdrawn into the brachial artery and aorto-brachial pulse wave velocity (abPWV) was calculated from the length of the pullback and the time delay between the ascending aorta and the brachial artery pulse waves by gating to the R-wave of the ECG for both measurements. In 23 patients, a cuff was inflated around the calf and an aorta-tibial pulse wave velocity (atPWV) was calculated from the distance between the cuff around the leg and the axillary notch and the time delay between the ascending aorta and the tibial pulse waves. Brachial BP was measured non-invasively and cBP was estimated using a new suprasystolic oscillometric technology. The mean differences between invasively measured cBP by FFR and non-invasive estimation were -0.4 ± 5.7 mmHg and by FF 5.4 ± 9.4 mmHg in 52 patients. Diastolic and mean cBP were both overestimated by oscillometry, with mean differences of -8.9 ± 5.5 mmHg and -6.4 ± 5.1 mmHg compared with the FFR and -10.6 ± 6.3 mmHg and -5.9 ± 6.2 mmHg with the FF. Non-invasive systolic cBP compared accurately with the high-fidelity FFR measurements, demonstrating a low bias (≤5 mmHg) and high precision (SD ≤ 8 mmHg). These criteria were not met when using the FF measurements. Invasively derived average Ao-brachial abPWV was 7.0 ± 1.4 m/s and that of Ao-tibial atPWV was 9.1 ± 1.8 m/s. Non-invasively estimated PWV based on the reflected wave transit time did not correlate with abPWV or with atPWV. In conclusion, we demonstrate the advantages of a novel method of validation for non-invasive cBP monitoring devices using acknowledged gold standard FFR wire transducers and the possibility to easily measure PWV during coronary angiography with the impact of cardiovascular risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.