In silico data-based comparison of the accuracy and error source of various methods for noninvasively estimating central aortic blood pressure

Abstract

Background and objectives

The higher clinical significance of central aortic blood pressure (CABP) compared to peripheral blood pressures has been extensively demonstrated. Accordingly, many methods for noninvasively estimating CABP have been proposed. However, there still lacks a systematic comparison of existing methods, especially in terms of how they differ in the ability to tolerate individual differences or measurement errors. The present study was designed to address this gap.

Methods

A large-scale ‘virtual subject’ dataset (n = 600) was created using a computational model of the cardiovascular system, and applied to examine several classical CABP estimation methods, including the direct method, generalized transfer function (GTF) method, n-point moving average (NPMA) method, second systolic pressure of periphery (SBP2) method, physical model-based wave analysis (MBWA) method, and suprasystolic cuff-based waveform reconstruction (SCWR) method. The errors of CABP estimation were analyzed and compared among methods with respect to the magnitude/distribution, correlations with physiological/hemodynamic factors, and sensitivities to noninvasive measurement errors.

Results

The errors of CABP estimation exhibited evident inter-method differences in terms of the mean and standard deviation (SD). Relatively, the estimation errors of the methods adopting pre-trained algorithms (i.e., the GTF and SCWR methods) were overall smaller and less sensitive to variations in physiological/hemodynamic conditions and random errors in noninvasive measurement of brachial arterial blood pressure (used for calibrating peripheral pulse wave). The performances of all the methods worsened following the introduction of random errors to peripheral pulse wave (used for deriving CABP), as characterized by the enlarged SD and/or increased mean of the estimation errors. Notably, the GTF and SCWR methods did not exhibit a better capability of tolerating pulse wave errors in comparison with other methods.

Conclusions

Classical noninvasive methods for estimating CABP were found to differ considerably in both the accuracy and error source, which provided theoretical evidence for understanding the specific advantages and disadvantages of each method. Knowledge about the method-specific error source and sensitivities of errors to different physiological/hemodynamic factors may contribute as theoretical references for interpreting clinical observations and exploring factors underlying large estimation errors, or provide guidance for optimizing existing methods or developing new methods.