English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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