Dataset Information

Central Pressure Appraisal: Clinical Validation of a Subject-Specific Mathematical Model.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Current evidence suggests that aortic blood pressure has a superior prognostic value with respect to brachial pressure for cardiovascular events, but direct measurement is not feasible in daily clinical practice. AIM:The aim of the present study is the clinical validation of a multiscale mathematical model for non-invasive appraisal of central blood pressure from subject-specific characteristics. METHODS:A total of 51 young male were selected for the present study. Aortic systolic and diastolic pressure were estimated with a mathematical model and were compared to the most-used non-invasive validated technique (SphygmoCor device, AtCor Medical, Australia). SphygmoCor was calibrated through diastolic and systolic brachial pressure obtained with a sphygmomanometer, while model inputs consist of brachial pressure, height, weight, age, left-ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, and data from a pulse wave velocity study. RESULTS:Model-estimated systolic and diastolic central blood pressures resulted to be significantly related to SphygmoCor-assessed central systolic (r = 0.65 p <0.0001) and diastolic (r = 0.84 p<0.0001) blood pressures. The model showed a significant overestimation of systolic pressure (+7.8 (-2.2;14) mmHg, p = 0.0003) and a significant underestimation of diastolic values (-3.2 (-7.5;1.6), p = 0.004), which imply a significant overestimation of central pulse pressure. Interestingly, model prediction errors mirror the mean errors reported in large meta-analysis characterizing the use of the SphygmoCor when non-invasive calibration is performed. CONCLUSION:In conclusion, multi-scale mathematical model predictions result to be significantly related to SphygmoCor ones. Model-predicted systolic and diastolic aortic pressure resulted in difference of less than 10 mmHg in the 51% and 84% of the subjects, respectively, when compared with SphygmoCor-obtained pressures.

SUBMITTER: Tosello F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4806836 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Central Pressure Appraisal: Clinical Validation of a Subject-Specific Mathematical Model.

Tosello Francesco F Guala Andrea A Leone Dario D Camporeale Carlo C Bruno Giulia G Ridolfi Luca L Veglio Franco F Milan Alberto A

PloS one 20160324 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Current evidence suggests that aortic blood pressure has a superior prognostic value with respect to brachial pressure for cardiovascular events, but direct measurement is not feasible in daily clinical practice.<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of the present study is the clinical validation of a multiscale mathematical model for non-invasive appraisal of central blood pressure from subject-specific characteristics.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 51 young male were selected for the present st ...[more]

PMID: 27010562

Similar Datasets

Project description:Subject-specific mathematical models for prediction of physiological parameters such as blood volume, cardiac output, and blood pressure in response to hemorrhage have been developed. In silico studies using these models may provide an effective tool to generate pre-clinical safety evidence for medical devices and help reduce the size and scope of animal studies that are performed prior to initiation of human trials. To achieve such a goal, the credibility of the mathematical model must be established for the purpose of pre-clinical in silico testing. In this work, the credibility of a subject-specific mathematical model of blood volume kinetics intended to predict blood volume response to hemorrhage and fluid resuscitation during fluid therapy was evaluated. A workflow was used in which: (i) the foundational properties of the mathematical model such as structural identifiability were evaluated; (ii) practical identifiability was evaluated both pre- and post-calibration, with the pre-calibration results used to determine an optimal splitting of experimental data into calibration and validation datasets; (iii) uncertainty in model parameters and the experimental uncertainty were quantified for each subject; and (iv) the uncertainty was propagated through the blood volume kinetics model and its predictive capability was evaluated via validation tests. The mathematical model was found to be structurally identifiable. Pre-calibration identifiability analysis led to splitting the 180 min of time series data per subject into 50 and 130 min calibration and validation windows, respectively. The average root mean squared error of the mathematical model was 12.6% using the calibration window of (0 min, 50 min). Practical identifiability was established post-calibration after fixing one of the parameters to a nominal value. In the validation tests, 82 and 75% of the subject-specific mathematical models were able to correctly predict blood volume response when predictive capability was evaluated at 180 min and at the time when amount of infused fluid equals fluid loss.

Project description:BackgroundWe have previously reported a simple correction method for estimating pleural pressure (Ppl) using central venous pressure (CVP). However, it remains unclear whether this method is applicable to patients with varying levels of intravascular volumes and/or chest wall compliance. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of our method under different conditions of intravascular volume and chest wall compliance.ResultsTen anesthetized and paralyzed pigs (43.2 ± 1.8 kg) were mechanically ventilated and subjected to lung injury by saline lung lavage. Each pig was subjected to three different intravascular volumes and two different intraabdominal pressures. For each condition, the changes in the esophageal pressure (ΔPes) and the estimated ΔPpl using ΔCVP (cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl) were compared to the directly measured change in pleural pressure (Δd-Ppl), which was the gold standard estimate in this study. The cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl was calculated as κ × ΔCVP, where "κ" was the ratio of the change in airway pressure to the change in CVP during the occlusion test. The means and standard deviations of the Δd-Ppl, ΔPes, and cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl for all pigs under all conditions were 7.6 ± 4.5, 7.2 ± 3.6, and 8.0 ± 4.8 cmH2O, respectively. The repeated measures correlations showed that both the ΔPes and cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl showed a strong correlation with the Δd-Ppl (ΔPes: r = 0.95, p < 0.0001; cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl: r = 0.97, p < 0.0001, respectively). In the Bland-Altman analysis to test the performance of the cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl to predict the Δd-Ppl, the ΔPes and cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl showed almost the same bias and precision (ΔPes: 0.5 and 1.7 cmH2O; cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl: - 0.3 and 1.9 cmH2O, respectively). No significant difference was found in the bias and precision depending on the intravascular volume and intraabdominal pressure in both comparisons between the ΔPes and Δd-Ppl, and cΔCVP-derived ΔPpl and Δd-Ppl.ConclusionsThe CVP method can estimate the ΔPpl with reasonable accuracy, similar to Pes measurement. The accuracy was not affected by the intravascular volume or chest wall compliance.

Dataset Information

Central Pressure Appraisal: Clinical Validation of a Subject-Specific Mathematical Model.

Publications

Central Pressure Appraisal: Clinical Validation of a Subject-Specific Mathematical Model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets