Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Mathematical Modeling of Arterial Blood Pressure Using Photo-Plethysmography Signal in Breath-hold Maneuver

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1811.06541 v1 pith:UB2GX36S submitted 2018-11-14 eess.SP cs.CE

classification eess.SPcs.CE
keywords bloodpressureerrorapneabeat-to-beatbreathbreathingestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent research has shown that each apnea episode results in a significant rise in the beat-to-beat blood pressure and by a drop to the pre-episode levels when patient resumes normal breathing. While the physiological implications of these repetitive and significant oscillations are still unknown, it is of interest to quantify them. Since current array of instruments deployed for polysomnography studies does not include beat-to-beat measurement of blood pressure, but includes oximetry, it is both of clinical interest to estimate the magnitude of BP oscillations from the photoplethysmography (PPG) signal that is readily available from sleep lab oximeters. We have investigated a new method for continuous estimation of systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean (MBP) blood pressure waveforms from PPG. Peaks and troughs of PPG waveform are used as input to a 5th order autoregressive moving average model to construct estimates of SBP, DBP, and MBP waveforms. Since breath hold maneuvers are shown to simulate apnea episodes faithfully, we evaluated the performance of the proposed method in 7 subjects (4 F; 32+-4 yrs., BMI 24.57+-3.87 kg/m2) in supine position doing 5 breath maneuvers with 90s of normal breathing between them. The modeling error ranges were (all units are in mmHg) -0.88+-4.87 to -2.19+-5.73 (SBP); 0.29+-2.39 to -0.97+-3.83 (DBP); and -0.42+-2.64 to -1.17+-3.82 (MBP). The cross validation error ranges were 0.28+-6.45 to -1.74+-6.55 (SBP); 0.09+-3.37 to -0.97+-3.67 (DBP); and 0.33+-4.34 to -0.87+-4.42 (MBP). The level of estimation error in, as measured by the root mean squared of the model residuals, was less than 7 mmHg

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools