4.3 Article

Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
Volume 36, Issue 6, Pages 297-305

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpad026

Keywords

blood pressure; hypertension; intraocular pressure; jugular vein pressure; mean arterial pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to determine the optimal formula for calculating mean arterial pressure (MAP), compared to the gold standard method. Eight live pigs were used as an experimental model for invasive measurement of femoral artery pressure. The results showed that all current formulae are adequate for estimating MAP, but some formulae are not suitable for mean intraocular pressure (IOP) and jugular vein pressure (JVP).
BACKGROUND There are six different formulae for estimating mean arterial pressure (MAP) from systolic and diastolic pressure readings. This study is to determine the optimum formula for calculating MAP when compared to the gold standard approach, which is the area under the curve of an invasively measured pulse waveform divided by the cardiac cycle duration. METHODS Eight live pigs were used as the experimental model for the invasive measurement of femoral artery pressure (AP) by a fluid filled catheter connected with a pressure transducer. In addition, intraocular pressure (IOP) and jugular vein pressure (JVP) were also recorded. The mean pressure (MP) was calculated from digital waveforms sampled at 1,000 points per second with the six formulae and area method for AP, IOP and JVP. RESULTS The absolute mean difference between the area MAP and each formula's MAP ranged from 0.98 to 3.23 mm Hg. Our study also found that even under physiological conditions, area MAP can vary between successive pulses by up to 5 mm Hg. For mean IOP and JVP, the mean difference between a formula's MP and the area method's was less than 1 mm Hg for most formulae. With the pooled data, there was excellent agreement amongst all formulae for MAP with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.97 to 0.99, while the ICC of most formulae for IOP and JVP was 1.0. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that all current formulae are adequate for estimating MAP, though some formulae are not suitable for mean IOP and JVP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available