| Literature DB >> 24845294 |
Adelaide de Vecchi, Rachel E Clough, Nicholas R Gaddum, Marcel C M Rutten, Pablo Lamata, Tobias Schaeffter, David A Nordsletten, Nicolas P Smith.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of blood pressure is important because it is a biomarker for cardiovascular disease. Diagnostic catheterization is routinely used for pressure acquisition in vessels despite being subject to significant measurement errors. To investigate these errors, this study compares pressure measurement using two different techniques in vitro and numerical simulations. Pressure was acquired in a pulsatile flow phantom using a 6F fluid-filled catheter and a 0.014'' pressure wire, which is considered the current gold standard. Numerical simulations of the experimental set-up with and without a catheter were also performed. Despite the low catheter-to-vessel radius ratio, the catheter traces showed a 24% peak systolic pressure overestimation compared to the wire. The numerical models replicated this difference and indicated the cause for overestimation was the increased flow resistance due to the presence of the catheter. Further, the higher frequency pressure oscillations observed in the wire and numerical data were absent in the catheter, resulting in an overestimation of the pulse wave velocity with the latter modality. These results show that catheter geometry produces significant measurement bias in both the peak pressure and the waveform shape even with radius ratios considered acceptable in clinical practice. The wire allows for more accurate pressure quantification, in agreement with the numerical model without a catheter.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24845294 PMCID: PMC6217912 DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2014.2308594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng ISSN: 0018-9294 Impact factor: 4.538
Fig. 1Diagram of the pulsatile flow phantom.
Fig. 2Catheter position in the numerical model. The flow is aligned with the positive z axis.
Fig. 3Tetrahedral mesh (fluid domain) and hexahedral mesh (solid domain) in the numerical FSI model with a catheter.
Fig. 4(a) Percentage difference in the measured peak systolic pressure between wire and catheter in vitro, and wire and FSI models. Pressure isocontrours in a cross-section of the FSI model without (b) and with a catheter (c).
Fig. 5Pressure waveforms from catheter, wire and FSI simulations in two cross-sections at z=100mm (a) and z =140 mm (b). Single-sided amplitude spectrum of the frequencies in the pressure signals at z =100 mm (c) and z =140 mm (d).
Fig. 6Pulse wave velocity from wire, catheter, PC-MRI and numerical signals over three distances Δx.