Objective: Due to ongoing technical progress, the ultrasonic measurement of blood pressure (BP) as an alternative to oscillometric measurement (NIBP) or the continuous non-invasive arterial pressure method (CNAP) moves further into focus. The US method offers several advantages over NIBP and CNAP, such as deep tissue penetration and the utilization of different arterial locations.
Approach: Ten healthy subjects (six female, aged 30.9 ± 4.6 years) volunteered in our investigation. In the ultrasonic BP measurement, we differentiated between the directly measured (pulsatile diastolic and systolic vessel diameter) and indirectly calculated variables at three different artery locations on both arms, with two different ultrasound devices in the transversal and longitudinal directions of the transducer. Simultaneously, NIBP monitoring served as reference BP, while CNAP monitored the steady state condition of the arm under investigation. The Moens-Korteweg algorithm (MKE) and the algorithm of the working group of San Diego (SanD) were selected for the indirectly calculated ultrasonic BP data.
Main results: With US, we were able to measure the BP at each selected arterial position. Due to the investigation setup, we found small but significant interactions of the main effects. Bland and Altman analysis revealed that US-BP measurement was similar to NIBP, with superior accuracy when compared to the established CNAP method. In addition, US-BP measurement showed that the measurement accuracy of both arms can be regarded as identical. In a detailed comparison of the selected arterial vascular sections, systematic discrepancies between the right and left arm could be observed.
Conclusion: In our pilot study, we measured BP effectively and accurately by US using two different devices. Our findings suggest that ultrasonic BP measurement is an adequate alternative for live and continuous hemodynamic monitoring.
Keywords: arterial; blood pressure; dynamic; measurement; monitoring; noninvasive; ultrasound.