Jordi Alastruey1. 1. Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK. jordi.alastruey-arimon@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
A local estimation of pulse wave speed c, an important predictor of cardiovascular events, can be obtained at arterial locations where simultaneous measurements of blood pressure (P) and velocity (U), arterial diameter (D) and U, flow rate (Q) and cross-sectional area (A), or P and D are available, using the PU-loop, sum-of-squares (∑(2)), lnDU-loop, QA-loop or new D(2)P-loop methods. Here, these methods were applied to estimate c from numerically generated P, U, D, Q and A waveforms using a visco-elastic one-dimensional model of the 55 larger human systemic arteries in normal conditions. Theoretical c were calculated from the parameters of the model. Estimates of c given by the loop methods were closer to theoretical values and more uniform within each arterial segment than those obtained using the ∑(2). The smaller differences between estimates and theoretical values were obtained using the D(2)P-loop method, with root-mean-square errors (RMSE) smaller than 0.18 ms(-1), followed by averaging the two c given by the PU- and lnDU-loops (RMSE <2.99 ms(-1)). In general, the errors of the PU-, lnDU- and QA-loops decreased at locations where visco-elastic effects were small and nearby junctions were well-matched for forward-travelling waves. The ∑(2) performed better at proximal locations.
A local estimation of pulse wave speed c, an important predictor of cardiovascular events, can be obtained at arterial locations where simultaneous measurements of blood pressure (P) and velocity (U), arterial diameter (D) and U, flow rate (Q) and cross-sectional area (A), or P and D are available, using the PU-loop, sum-of-squares (∑(2)), lnDU-loop, QA-loop or new D(2)P-loop methods. Here, these methods were applied to estimate c from numerically generated P, U, D, Q and A waveforms using a visco-elastic one-dimensional model of the 55 larger human systemic arteries in normal conditions. Theoretical c were calculated from the parameters of the model. Estimates of c given by the loop methods were closer to theoretical values and more uniform within each arterial segment than those obtained using the ∑(2). The smaller differences between estimates and theoretical values were obtained using the D(2)P-loop method, with root-mean-square errors (RMSE) smaller than 0.18 ms(-1), followed by averaging the two c given by the PU- and lnDU-loops (RMSE <2.99 ms(-1)). In general, the errors of the PU-, lnDU- and QA-loops decreased at locations where visco-elastic effects were small and nearby junctions were well-matched for forward-travelling waves. The ∑(2) performed better at proximal locations.
The changes in blood pressure and flow at the ascending aorta
generated by the contraction of the left ventricle propagate throughout the
systemic arterial network in the form of waves, referred to as pulse
waves (Caro et al., 1978;
Pedley, 1980). The speed at which pulse waves travel in the
absence of any convective velocity, known as pulse wave speed
c, is a measure of arterial stiffness, which has been identified
as an important predictor of cardiovascular events (Blacher et al., 1999; Laurent et al., 2001; Meaume
et al., 2001). Knowledge of c is also
of paramount importance for pulse wave analysis; in particular to separate the
pressure and flow waveforms measured at a single location into forward- and
backward-travelling components (Parker and Jones,
1990).Several methods have been proposed to estimate
c from in vivo arterial
waveforms. In a clinical setting, the most widely used method calculates
c non-invasively as the ratio of the distance between
two measuring sites (usually the carotid and femoral arteries) and the transit
time between these sites (Laurent et al.,
2006; Mancia et al. 2007). The recent Arteriograph method
estimates c from the pressure waveform measured at the
brachial artery with an occluding cuff (Horváth et al., 2010). By their nature, both methods
provide some average estimation of c over a length of the
arterial tree. Local estimations of c at a single
measurement site are possible if simultaneous measurements of blood pressure
(P) and velocity (U)
(Khir et al., 2001; Davies et al.,
2006), arterial diameter (D) and
U (Feng and Khir,
2010), or flow rate (Q) and luminal
area (A) (Rabben et al.,
2004) are available. These methods are referred to as the
PU-loop, sum-of-squares (), -loop and QA-loop, respectively, and will be
described in Sections
2.3–2.6.All these methods were developed in the time domain.
Frequency-domain methods for the estimation of c have
also been developed (O’Rourke and Taylor, 1967; Cox and Bagshaw, 1975; Milnor and
Bertram, 1978; van Huis et al., 1987; Stergiopulos et al.,
1999). However, they showed greater variation than the
PU-loop and when applied to P and
U measurements in the human carotids in normal
conditions (Aguado-Sierra et al.,
2006).The accuracy of each method is difficult to assess in
vivo, since the real value of c is
usually unknown. Numerically simulated pulse waveforms allow us to compare
estimates of c given by each method with theoretical
values obtained from the parameters of the model. Pulse wave propagation in
large systemic arteries can be accurately simulated at a reasonable
computational cost using the one-dimensional (1-D) equations of blood flow in
compliant vessels (Olufsen
et al., 2000; Steele et al., 2003; Matthys et al., 2007; Bessems et al.,
2008; Reymond et al., 2009). Trachet et al. (2010) applied these equations to compare
theoretical values of c with estimates given by the
carotid–femoral and Arteriograph methods, showing that both methods
underestimate c.The aim of this work is to test the performance of the
PU-loop, , -loop and QA-loop methods using pulse
waveforms generated in a 1-D model of the 55 larger human systemic arteries in
normal conditions (Fig.
1). This model can capture
the main features of in vivo pulse waveforms
(Stergiopulos et al., 1992). In
addition, a new method to estimate c from simultaneous
P and D measurements (the
D2P-loop)
will be described (Section 2.7) and
tested. The effect on the performance of each method of visco-elasticity and
reflections at arterial junctions will be analysed, and the mechanisms
underlying the discrepancies between theoretical and estimated
c will be discussed.
Fig. 1
Connectivity of the 55 larger systemic arteries in the
human. Their names and properties were taken from Alastruey (in press) and are shown in Tables 1 and 2 of the
supplementary material. A periodic flow rate with a mean flow of 5.6 l min−1 was prescribed at the aortic root
for the first 10 s, followed by zero flow for .
Materials and methods
Numerical pulse waveforms
Pulse waveforms were simulated in the 55-artery network in
Fig. 1 using the nonlinear
1-D equations of incompressible and axisymmetric flow in Voigt-type
visco-elastic vesselswhere x is the axial coordinate along
the vessel, t the time,
A(x,t)
the cross-sectional area of the lumen,
U(x,t)
the average axial velocity,
P(x,t)
the average internal pressure over the cross section, Kg m−3 the mass density of blood,
f the friction force per unit length, and
the blood viscosity. The arterial wall is assumed to be thin,
homogeneous, incompressible and visco-elastic, with each cross section
deforming axisymmetrically and independent of the others. The parameters
h(x),
E(x) and are the thickness, Young's modulus and Voigt-type viscous
modulus of the arterial wall, respectively, and
A0(x) is
the luminal area at P=0. and are assumed to be constant and related to the elastic and
visco-elastic properties of the arterial wall, respectively.Eq. (1) were
solved in the arterial network of Fig.
1 using a discontinuous Galerkin scheme with a
spectralhp spatial discretisation and zero
pressures and flows as initial conditions. The time step was for the elastic-wall models and for the visco-elastic-wall model. Arterial segments were divided
into non-overlapping elements with a 2 cm length (when
physically possible) and a polynomial and quadrature order of 3. Elements or
segments shorter than 2 cm were given a polynomial and
quadrature order of 2. Further details on the 1-D formulation are given in
the supplementary material.The physiological data of the models were taken from
Alastruey (in press) and are
shown in Tables 1–3 (supplementary material). A version of the
55-artery model with purely elastic vessels and modified radii so that
junctions are well-matched for forward-travelling waves (i.e. waves are
initially reflected at terminal branches) was also considered. This model
will be referred to as the ‘well-matched model’.The periodic flow rate shown in Fig. 1 was prescribed at the aortic root for the first
10 s, followed by zero flow to study the relaxation of
the system. Terminal branches were coupled to matched three-element
windkessel models, as described by Alastruey et
al. (2008), with the parameters shown in Table 2
(supplementary material). Conservation of mass and continuity of the total
pressure was enforced at the arterial junctions.
Theoretical pulse wave speed
System (1) is hyperbolic and admits wave-like solutions for
P and U when . In that case, Riemann's method of characteristics shows
that disturbances to the flow create changes in pressure and velocity across the wave fronts, which propagate forward (in the positive
x-direction) with speed
U+c and backward
(in the negative x-direction) with speed
U−c, where
(Parker and Jones,
1990). For the tube law in (1), with and A0 constant, we haveMoreover, and consist of a forward- (indicated with the subscript +)
and a backward- (indicated with the subscript −) travelling
component, which are related through the ‘water hammer’ equationIn this work the theoretical value of the local
c was calculated using Eq. (2) with A the mean
cross-sectional area over the cardiac cycle.
PU-loop
This method assumes that there is a period in early systole
when there are no reflected waves, so that and are zero. This leads to and , so that according to Eq. (3). Therefore c can be obtained asIn the arteries simulated, the part of the
PU-loop corresponding to early systole is
approximately linear (Fig.
2a). Its slope is
(Eq. (4)), which
allows us to determine c using a reasonable
approximation for (Khir et al., 2001).
Later in the cardiac cycle, forward and backward waves are present and the
PU-loop is no longer linear.
Fig. 2
PU-loop (a), -loop (b), QA-loop (c) and
D2P-loop (d)
in the midpoint of the thoracic aorta II (Segment 27) in the purely elastic
(dashed lines) and visco-elastic (solid lines) 55-artery models. Wave speeds
c calculated using the linear least-squares fit
highlighted in red. The theoretical c is 5.28 m s−1. Pressure (e)
and c (f) with time at the same location for the elastic
(dashed lines) and visco-elastic (solid lines) models. The linear regions used
in the loops are highlighted in red. (The complete pressure waveform was used
for the D2P-loop
in the purely elastic model.) (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
Sum of squares ()
This method was derived to estimate c
in the coronary arteries, where the PU-loop does not
show a period of time when pulse waves are unidirectional. Given
simultaneous P and U
measurements at a single location, c is obtained aswhere the sums extend over a cardiac cycle. Eq. (5) follows from Eq. (3) assuming to be small compared with . This is equivalent to finding the value of that minimises net wave energies (Davies et al., 2006).
-loop
Feng and Khir
(2010) showed that c, and changes in the natural logarithm of the arterial diameter
are related throughduring a reflection-free period of the cardiac cycle. In the
arteries simulated, the part of the -loop corresponding to early systole is approximately linear
(Fig. 2b). Its slope is
1/(2c) according to Eq. (6).
QA-loop
If there is a reflection-free period in the cardiac cycle,
c can be estimated as the ratio between the
change in flow rate and the change in cross-sectional area (Rabben et al.,
2004); i.e.In the arteries simulated, the part of the
QA-loop corresponding to early systole is
approximately linear (Fig. 2c).
Its slope is c according to Eq. (7).
D2P-loop
Assuming the arterial wall to be a Voigt-type visco-elastic
material, the numerical results show that the visco-elastic term in the tube
law in (1) becomes increasingly constant with time in diastole and the
elastic term leads to an approximately linear relationship between
D2 and P
in late diastole (Fig. 2d). The
slope can be calculated by differentiating the elastic term in the tube law,
with and A0 assumed to be
constant. This leads toat (P, A)=(0,
A0). Eq. (2) with
A=A0 was
used for the second equality. Solving Eq. (8) for c with and yieldsEq. (9) allows
us to calculate c from the slope of the
D2P-loop
in late diastole using a reasonable value for and approximating D0 by
the mean arterial diameter.
Results
The simulated pressure and velocity waveforms along the aorta
and left iliac, femoral and tibial arteries of the purely elastic and
visco-elastic 55-artery models are shown in Fig.
3 for the tenth cardiac
cycle, when the pulse waveform has become periodic. At the aortic root, the
systolic pressure is 15.6 kPa and the diastolic pressure
10.9 kPa for the purely elastic model. The corresponding
values for the visco-elastic model are 16.6 and 10.6 kPa. The
difference between these pressures (the pulse pressure) increases in the aorta
toward distal locations. In both models, fluid viscosity decreases the mean
pressure from 13.3 kPa at the aortic root to 13.2 kPa at the end of the aorta and 7.7 kPa at the
end of the tibial arteries (Segments 49 and 55). The feet of the pressure
waveforms show that the speed of pulse wave propagation increases distally; this
is observed more clearly in the purely elastic model. In early diastole, the
flow reverses in most of the aortic and iliac segments. Later in diastole pulse
waveforms decrease approximately exponentially with similar time constants,
especially for the pressure wave. This decay continues after 10 s, when a zero flow rate at the aortic root was prescribed.
Fig. 3
Pressure (a,c) and velocity (b,d) versus time and
distance in 2 cm increments from the aortic root
(x=0, Segment 1) to the end of the left anterior
tibial artery (Segment 49), through Segments 2, 14, 18, 27, 28, 35, 37, 39, 41,
42, 44 and 46. The aortic bifurcation is at x=44.4 cm. Pulse waveforms generated using the purely elastic (a,b) and
visco-elastic (c,d) formulations in the normal 55-artery model. Continuous
pressure and velocity magnitudes are shown using coloured surfaces interpolated
from the simulated pulse waveforms every 1 cm. After
t=10 s, a zero flow rate was
prescribed at the aortic root to show the relaxation of the models. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig.
4 shows the theoretical wave
speed c calculated using Eq. (2) along the
aortic–iliac–femoral–tibial path in 1 cm increments, for the (a, b) purely elastic, (c, d) visco-elastic and (e, f)
well-matched models. They are compared against the speeds determined using the
PU-loop, , -loop, and QA-loop. Overall, the estimations
of c given by these loop methods are closer to the
theoretical value and more uniform within each segment than those obtained using
the . The errors of these four methods increased in the visco-elastic
model, especially at proximal locations, and decreased in the well-matched
model. In those segments where the PU-loop overestimated
c, the -loop underestimated it, and vice versa. This
result suggests that c could be estimated closer to the
theoretical value using the average of the two values obtained from the
PU- and -loops. The c values estimated using the
D2P-loop
cannot be distinguished from the theoretical values in the scale of
Fig. 4. Similar qualitative
comparisons of c estimates and theoretical values were
obtained in other arterial segments.
Fig. 4
Theoretical (red lines) and estimated pulse wave speed
with distance in 1 cm increments from the aortic root
(x=0) to the end of the left anterior tibial artery,
through the same segments as in Fig.
3. Estimated values calculated using the
PU-loop, -loop, QA-loop and sum-of-squares () methods with the pulse waveforms from the (a,b) purely elastic and
(c,d) visco-elastic normal models and the (e,f) well-matched model. Estimated
values using the
D2P-loop
method are not shown, since they cannot be distinguished from the theoretical
values in the scale of the figures. Note the different scales of
c in the left and right figures, and the different
theoretical values for the normal and well-matched models. (For interpretation
of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
Table
1 shows the root-mean-square
errors (RMSE) between theoretical and estimated c in the
three arterial models. Absolute errors were calculated at 304 locations: the
inlet, midpoint and outlet of each arterial segment, and at all the locations on
the aortic–iliac–femoral–tibial path of Fig. 4. RMSE were then calculated for all the
segments in the aorta and each generation of bifurcations from the aorta. The
larger RMSE are mostly obtained in the 4th and 5th generation of bifurcations,
which are terminal segments except for Segment 9 in the right arm.
Table 1
Root-mean-square errors (RMSE) in m s−1 between theoretical c
and those estimated using the PU-loop, sum-of-squares
(), -loop, QA-loop, and
D2P-loop
methods in the 55-artery network. Absolute errors were calculated at 304 locations. RMSE were then grouped according to the number of generations of
bifurcations from the aorta, with N the total number of
samples in each group. At least three locations were considered in each arterial
segment (inlet, midpoint and outlet), including all the locations on the
aortic–iliac–femoral–tibial path of Fig. 4. The last row shows the errors of
estimating c as the average of the two
c from the PU- and -loop methods. All errors are given in a triad of numbers: the first
corresponds to pulse waveforms simulated using the purely elastic formulation,
the second using the visco-elastic formulation (in italics) and the third using
the purely elastic formulation in the well-matched network (in
bold).
Aorta
1st gen.
2nd gen.
3rd gen.
4th gen.
5th gen.
Samples
70
39
50
80
59
6
PU-loop
0.78 2.900.69
0.82 1.990.49
0.93 1.100.54
0.54 0.420.33
3.09 3.980.47
0.63 2.141.08
∑2
2.56 4.660.65
6.89 9.183.04
4.75 6.684.96
4.37 6.063.63
6.98 8.357.50
8.21 11.5123.45
lnDU-loop
0.76 3.580.64
0.69 0.650.43
1.90 2.400.50
0.57 0.360.28
2.41 2.850.50
0.68 1.971.11
QA-loop
1.01 2.250.89
0.87 0.740.73
1.10 2.130.85
0.59 0.490.42
1.77 2.680.74
1.33 1.991.35
D2P-loop
0.02 0.180.00
0.02 0.020.01
0.02 0.010.01
0.02 0.020.02
0.01 0.010.02
0.01 0.010.02
Average loops
0.04 2.990.03
0.13 0.890.06
0.52 0.880.03
0.03 0.190.03
0.35 0.630.03
0.03 0.370.03
RMSE for the ‘loop’ methods decreased in most of
the locations if bifurcations were well-matched for forward-travelling waves and
the arterial wall was purely elastic. Estimation of c
using the average of the two c from the
PU- and -loops considerably reduced the errors in any group and model (with
the exception of the segments of the aorta and first generation in the
visco-elastic model), leading to RMSE smaller than 0.52 m s−1 in the purely elastic
model, 2.99 m s−1
in the visco-elastic model, and 0.06 m s−1 in the well-matched model. RMSE for the
decreased at all locations if visco-elastic effects were neglected,
and mainly at proximal locations if bifurcations were well-matched. They
increased considerably in the 5th generation of bifurcations of the well-matched
model. Absolute errors smaller than 0.67 m s−1 were obtained using the
D2P-loop at
any location for any model.In the visco-elastic model, the diastolic region of the pulse
waveform used for the linear fitting in the
D2P-loop was
longer than the systolic region in the PU-, - and QA-loops. Fig. 2e compares these regions in an aortic pressure
waveform.The produced RMSE smaller than 1.4 m s−1 in the well-matched model if terminal
boundary conditions were completely absorbent. If, in addition, the flow was
inviscid (), then P, U,
D, Q and
A were approximately proportional at any location in
the network and the absolute errors of any of the methods studied were less than
0.1 m s−1.
Discussion
The ability of the PU-loop, , -loop, QA-loop, and
D2P-loop
methods to estimate theoretical values of c was tested
using pulse waveforms generated in a nonlinear 1-D model of the 55 larger
systemic arteries in the human in normal conditions. Although these data are an
approximation to in vivo pulse waveforms, they have the
advantage of being free of measurement and alignment errors, and of providing
theoretical values of c from the parameters of the model
to compare with the estimates. The use of the 1-D formulation is justified
because all the methods studied are based on this formulation.Overall, the loop methods produced estimations of
c closer to the theoretical value than did the
. The
D2P-loop led
to the smallest RMSE, followed by averaging the estimations from the
PU- and -loops. The latter method, however, requires simultaneous
measurements of three waveforms (P,
U and D), instead of the two
required by the other methods studied. This limits its in
vivo applicability.The absolute errors in the estimates of c
using the PU-, , and QA-loops increased in most of the
arterial locations studied if visco-elasticity was modelled. They decreased if
bifurcations were well-matched for forward-travelling waves. These observations
are in agreement with the assumptions of purely elastic wall and absence of any
reflected wave in early systole made in the derivation of these methods. Indeed,
Alastruey et al. (2009) showed,
for a 55-artery network with the same reflection coefficients as in the normal
model used here, the arrival of waves reflected at nearby junctions in early
systole, when the relationship between P and
U, and U, or Q and
A is still approximately linear (e.g. within the red
regions in Fig. 2). These waves
change the slope of the linear part of the PU-, - and QA-loops and, hence, are responsible for
the errors observed in their estimates of c.
Consequently, these loop methods are more useful for estimating the theoretical
c at locations where the visco-elastic effects are
small and nearby junctions are distant and close to well-matched for
forward-travelling waves. Moreover, the difference between the estimates of
c obtained from the PU- and
-loops seem to correlate well with the intensity of reflected waves
in the system; the greater the intensity is, the greater the difference is. The
demonstration of the utility of this difference to estimate the intensity of
reflected waves remains to be explored fully.The new
D2P-loop
method does not have the problems discussed above, but it has only been tested
using a Voigt-type visco-elastic model of the arterial wall. Although several
studies have shown that this model provides a good approximation to the
relationship between P and D
observed in vivo (Armentano et al., 1995; Craiem et al., 2005; Čanić et al.,
2006), more complex wall models have been proposed (e.g.
Bessems et al., 2008; Devault et
al., 2008; Valdez-Jasso et al., 2009) for which the
D2P-loop was
not tested. Moreover, the
D2P-loop
might not be linear in late diastole for short cardiac cycles. According to the
simulations, it is linear when the pressure waveform becomes uniform in space.
The PU-, - and QA-loops also have a linear part at the
end of diastole, but their slopes seem not to be related to
c.The was originally derived for the coronary arteries, which were not
considered in this study. Nevertheless, the errors obtained here should be
similar or even greater in these arteries, since vessel movement due to
myocardial contraction (which was not considered in the derivation of the
) is a potential additional source of error. Theoretically, the
can provide flawed results when measurements are taken close to a
reflection site with a large reflection coefficient, so that there is
significant correlation between forward- and backward-travelling waves
(Davies et al., 2006). According
to Kolyva et al. (2008), however, the
main source of error of the in the coronary arteries is their windkesselness nature rather than
the existence of reflections. Indeed, they concluded that the is inappropriate for estimating c in coronary
arteries. In the present study, the performance of the improved at proximal locations if bifurcations were well-matched for
forward-travelling waves. This suggests that wave reflections should have some
effect on the . Aguado-Sierra et al.
(2006) showed, using in vitro data
measured in a thin-walled latex tube, that the overestimated the foot-to-foot calculation of
c by 3.5 m s−1 on average, with differences larger than
4.0 m s−1 at
locations more than 10 cm away from the reflection sites.
These differences are smaller than most of the RMSE reported in Table 1, but significant taking into account
the relatively larger distance from the reflection sites of the experiment. The
errors of the , however, do not seem to be critical when calculating the total wave
energy carried during the heart cycle by forward- and backward-travelling waves
in the coronary circulation (Siebes et al.,
2009).The PU-loop, and
D2P-loop
methods require knowledge of the blood density . The latter method, however, is less sensitive to changes in
; e.g. a 5% change in yields changes in the estimation of c smaller
than 3% for the
D2P-loop and
of about 5% for the PU-loop and . Moreover, c varies nonlinearly with
A (Eq. (2)) and, hence, P. The methods
studied here, therefore, provide some average estimation of
c over the cardiac cycle (Fig. 2f). Once the flow became periodic in the 55-artery
models, changes in A within a cardiac cycle were smaller
than 25% at aortic locations and 11% at the terminal branches of the head and
limbs, leading to changes in the theoretical c smaller
than 8% and 3%, respectively.In vivo, the applicability and
performance of the methods studied depends upon the feasibility of accurate
measurements of the data they require. For the loop methods, a good accuracy is
critical during the linear period, which is usually less than 50 m s (Khir et al., 2001; Rabben et al., 2004; Feng and Khir,
2010). Thus, a high sampling frequency is fundamental. According
to this study, the
D2P-loop is
approximately linear for more than 50 ms (Fig. 2e), but this has not been tested
in vivo. The existence of a time lag between
P and U measurements is a
potential additional source of error for the PU-loop,
which can be corrected as described by Swalen and
Khir (2009). The evolution of D can be
measured non-invasively at some locations using ultrasound-based echo-tracking
(Rabben et al., 2002). However,
this technique, which is not applicable in the coronary arteries, may well
introduce an additional error that limits the good performance of the
D2P-loop
method shown here.
Conclusions
According to the results presented here, the estimation of
c closest to the theoretical value is obtained from
simultaneous diameter and pressure measurements using the
D2P-loop. If
pressure and velocity measurements are available, the
PU-loop produces estimates of c
closer to the theoretical values than the , which performs better at proximal locations. The average
c obtained from the PU- and
-loops has a smaller error than the estimate provided by either
method. Particular care should be taken when applying the
PU-, - and QA-loops at locations with significant
visco-elastic effects and reflected waves. These conclusions, however, still
need to be assessed using in vivo data.
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest between the author of this
paper and other external researchers or organisations that could have
inappropriately influenced this work.
Authors: B Trachet; P Reymond; J Kips; A Swillens; M De Buyzere; B Suys; N Stergiopulos; P Segers Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Justin E Davies; Zachary I Whinnett; Darrel P Francis; Keith Willson; Rodney A Foale; Iqbal S Malik; Alun D Hughes; Kim H Parker; Jamil Mayet Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: M Umar Qureshi; Gareth D A Vaughan; Christopher Sainsbury; Martin Johnson; Charles S Peskin; Mette S Olufsen; N A Hill Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol Date: 2014-03-09
Authors: Jordi Alastruey; Ashraf W Khir; Koen S Matthys; Patrick Segers; Spencer J Sherwin; Pascal R Verdonck; Kim H Parker; Joaquim Peiró Journal: J Biomech Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Michael A Haidar; Mark A van Buchem; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; John D Gotal; Vilmundur Gudnason; Lenore J Launer; Gary F Mitchell Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 9.897