Literature DB >> 34763325

Model-based approach to investigate equipment-induced error in pressure-waveform derived hemodynamic measurements.

Masoud Farahmand1, Hossein Mirinejad2, Christopher G Scully1.   

Abstract

Objective.Advanced hemodynamic monitoring systems have provided less invasive methods for estimating pressure-derived measurements such as pressure-derived cardiac output (CO) measurements. These devices apply algorithms to arterial pressure waveforms recorded via pressure recording components that transmit the pressure signal to a pressure monitor. While standards have been developed for pressure monitoring equipment, it is unclear how the equipment-induced error can affect secondary measurements from pressure waveforms. We propose an approach for modelling different components of a pressure monitoring system and use this model-based approach to investigate the effect of different pressure recording configurations on pressure-derived hemodynamic measurements.Approach.The proposed model-based approach is a three step process. (1) Modelling the response of pressure recording components using bench tests; (2) verifying the identified models through nonparametric equivalence tests; and (3) assessing the effects of pressure recording components on pressure-derived measurements. To delineate the application of this approach, we performed a series of model-based analyses to quantify the combined effect of a wide range of tubing configurations with various damping ratios and natural frequencies and monitors with different bandwidths on pressure waveforms and CO measurements by six pulse contour algorithms.Results.Model-based results show the error in pressure-derived CO measurements because of tubing configurations with different natural frequencies and damping ratios. Tubing configurations with low natural frequencies (<23 Hz) altered characteristics of pressure waveforms in a way that affected the CO measurement, some by as much as 20%.Significance.Our method can serve as a tool to quantify the performance of pressure recording systems with different dynamic properties. This approach can be applied to investigate the effects of physiologic signal recording configurations on various pressure-derived hemodynamic measurements.
© 2021 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure distortion; cardiac output; interoperable systems; patient monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34763325      PMCID: PMC8757537          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/ac38be

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Meas        ISSN: 0967-3334            Impact factor:   2.833


  21 in total

1.  PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals.

Authors:  A L Goldberger; L A Amaral; L Glass; J M Hausdorff; P C Ivanov; R G Mark; J E Mietus; G B Moody; C K Peng; H E Stanley
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2000-06-13       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Five algorithms that calculate cardiac output from the arterial waveform: a comparison with Doppler ultrasound.

Authors:  J Zhang; L A H Critchley; L Huang
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Nonparametric equivalence testing with respect to the median difference.

Authors:  Ulrich Meier
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2010 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.894

4.  Vestibular and corticospinal control of human body orientation in the gravitational field.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Anatol G Feldman; Mindy F Levin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Correction to: How to measure blood pressure using an arterial catheter: a systematic 5-step approach.

Authors:  Bernd Saugel; Karim Kouz; Agnes S Meidert; Leonie Schulte-Uentrop; Stefano Romagnoli
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Direct blood pressure measurement--dynamic response requirements.

Authors:  R M Gardner
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  The cardiac output from blood pressure algorithms trial.

Authors:  James X Sun; Andrew T Reisner; Mohammed Saeed; Thomas Heldt; Roger G Mark
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Machine-learning Algorithm to Predict Hypotension Based on High-fidelity Arterial Pressure Waveform Analysis.

Authors:  Feras Hatib; Zhongping Jian; Sai Buddi; Christine Lee; Jos Settels; Karen Sibert; Joseph Rinehart; Maxime Cannesson
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Accuracy of Cardiac Output by Nine Different Pulse Contour Algorithms in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Comparison with Transpulmonary Thermodilution.

Authors:  Ole Broch; Berthold Bein; Matthias Gruenewald; Sarah Masing; Katharina Huenges; Assad Haneya; Markus Steinfath; Jochen Renner
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  An optimal filter for short photoplethysmogram signals.

Authors:  Yongbo Liang; Mohamed Elgendi; Zhencheng Chen; Rabab Ward
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 6.444

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.