Bernhard Hametner1, Siegfried Wassertheurer2. 1. Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Donau-City-Strasse 1, 1220, Vienna, Austria. 2. Center for Health & Bioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Donau-City-Strasse 1, 1220, Vienna, Austria. siegfried.wassertheurer@ait.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Arterial pulse waveform analysis has a long tradition but has not pervaded medical routine yet. This review aims to answer the question whether the methodology is ready for prime time use. The current methodological consensus is assessed, existing technologies for waveform measurement and pulse wave analysis are discussed, and further needs for a widespread use are proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: A consensus document on the understanding and analysis of the pulse waveform was published recently. Although still some discrepancies remain, the analysis using both pressure and flow waves is favoured. However, devices which enable pulse wave measurement are limited, and the comparability between devices is not sufficiently given. Pulse waveform analysis has the potential for prime time. It is currently on a way towards broader use, but still needs to overcome challenges before settling its role in medical routine.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Arterial pulse waveform analysis has a long tradition but has not pervaded medical routine yet. This review aims to answer the question whether the methodology is ready for prime time use. The current methodological consensus is assessed, existing technologies for waveform measurement and pulse wave analysis are discussed, and further needs for a widespread use are proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: A consensus document on the understanding and analysis of the pulse waveform was published recently. Although still some discrepancies remain, the analysis using both pressure and flow waves is favoured. However, devices which enable pulse wave measurement are limited, and the comparability between devices is not sufficiently given. Pulse waveform analysis has the potential for prime time. It is currently on a way towards broader use, but still needs to overcome challenges before settling its role in medical routine.
Authors: Auke M T Huijben; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Jaap Deinum; Jacques Lenders; Anton H van den Meiracker Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Jazmin Aguado-Sierra; Justin E Davies; Nearchos Hadjiloizou; Darrel Francis; Jamil Mayet; Alun D Hughes; Kim H Parker Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2008
Authors: Alyssa A Torjesen; Na Wang; Martin G Larson; Naomi M Hamburg; Joseph A Vita; Daniel Levy; Emelia J Benjamin; Ramachandran S Vasan; Gary F Mitchell Journal: Hypertension Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Carmel M McEniery; John R Cockcroft; Mary J Roman; Stanley S Franklin; Ian B Wilkinson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Yurie Obata; Qi J Ong; J T Magruder; Helen Grichkevitch; Dan E Berkowitz; Daniel Nyhan; Jochen Steppan; Viachaslau Barodka Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Oscar M Camacho; Andrew Hedge; Frazer Lowe; Nik Newland; Nathan Gale; Mike McEwan; Christopher Proctor Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2020-01-28
Authors: Victor A Convertino; Steven G Schauer; Erik K Weitzel; Sylvain Cardin; Mark E Stackle; Michael J Talley; Michael N Sawka; Omer T Inan Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 3.576