The improvement of the shear stress and oscillatory shear index of coronary arteries during Enhanced External Counterpulsation in patients with coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced External Counterpulsation (EECP) can chronically relieve ischemic chest pain and improve the prognosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite its role in mitigating heart complications, EECP and the mechanisms behind its therapeutic nature, such as its effects on blood flow hemodynamics, are still not fully understood. This study aims to elucidate the effect of EECP on significant hemodynamic parameters in the coronary arterial tree.
METHODS: A finite volume method was used in conjunction with the inlet pressure wave (surrogated by the measured aortic pressure) before and during EECP and outlet flow resistance, assuming the blood as newtonian fluid. The time-average wall shear stress (TAWSS) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) were determined from the flow field.
RESULTS: Regardless of the degree of vascular stenosis, hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns could be improved during EECP. In comparison with the original tree, the tree with a severe stenosis (75% area stenosis) demonstrated more significant improvement in hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns during EECP, with surface area ratio of TAWSS risk area (SAR-TAWSS) reduced from 12.3% to 6.7% (vs. SAR-TAWSS reduced from 7.2% to 5.6% in the original tree) and surface area ratio of OSI risk area (SAR-OSI) reduced from 6.8% to 2.5% (vs. SAR-OSI of both 0% before and during EECP in the original tree because of mild stenosis). Moreover, it was also shown that small ratio of diastolic pressure (D) and systolic pressure (S) (D/S) could only improve the hemodynamic condition mildly. The SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio significantly increased as D/S became larger.
CONCLUSIONS: A key finding of the study was that the improvement of hemodynamic conditions along the LMCA trees during EECP became more significant with the increase of D/S and the severity degree of stenoses at the bifurcation site. These findings have important implications on EECP as adjuvant therapy before or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis.

Introduction

Enhanced External Counterpulsation (EECP) can noninvasively assist circulation in a safe and effective way. EECP increases blood pressure during diastole and causes reversal of blood flow direction in systole, thus generating a unique shape of aortic pressure wave [1]. In addition to the immediate effects of EECP, some patients also experience sustained benefits which can last for up to 5 years post-therapy. Therefore, some persistent mechanisms underlying it could exist [2]. According to latest researches, the increase of shear stress may explain this phenomenon [3-7].

In 2007, Zhang et al discovered that the shear stress in the EECP group was significantly higher than the baseline and the control group in a model of hypercholesterolemic pigs [3]. Later, Du et al used 3-D fluid structure interaction technology to rebuild the vasculature and monitored the shear stress of hypercholesterolemic pig in vitro, finding that both the plague wall stress and the time average wall shear stress significantly increased after EECP treatment [4]. Recently, in healthy volunteers, Randy et al showed that shear stress in both brachial and femoral arteries increased during EECP [5]. Based on the above, it is assumed that EECP can promote long-time relief from ischemic chest pain and improve the prognosis of coronary heart disease (CHD) by increasing shear stress. Additionally, the ratio of diastolic pressure (D) and systolic pressure (S) (D/S) was an important parameter of EECP, and it directly determined the increase of blood pressure during diastole [6,7]. However, previous work did not present the effects of the important parameters on hemodynamic improvement during EECP (i.e., the severe degree of stenosis and the effect of D/S).

Time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) are well known as primary risk parameters for the development and progression of atherosclerosis [8-12], which can further lead to various types of coronary stenosis [13]. Recent studies have discovered that low TAWSS (≤ 4 dynes/cm2) and high OSI (≥ 0.15) are risk factors for rupture-prone phenotype, which may be related to lipid accumulation and inflammatory cell infiltration to the intima [14-19]. Therefore, the evaluation of hemodynamic parameters in the epicardial coronary arterial tree is very important for understanding the progression of atherosclerosis as well as high-risk plaque formation. To evaluate the efficacy of EECP as adjuvant therapy after stent implantation or coronary artery bypass grafting, certain hemodynamic parameters can be applied.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods have been widely used in conjunction with empirically measured waveforms (as boundary conditions) to predict blood flow disturbances (e.g., flow separation, secondary flow, stagnation point flow, reversed flow, and/or turbulence) caused by convective inertia [12, 20–22], using TAWSS and OSI as important parameters [11, 19–21]. Recently, the CFD methods have been adopted to non-invasively determine the fractional flow reserve (FFR) [23, 24], which may guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for a better clinical outcome [25, 26]. However, few researchers have investigated the effect of EECP based on the CFD methods through examining hemodynamic changes [27].

The objective of this study is to investigate the hemodynamic changes in the patient-specific epicardial left main coronary arterial (LMCA) tree before or during EECP. Hemodynamic parameters used included TAWSS and OSI (SAR-TAWSS and SAR-OSI), and the flow fields were presented. In addition, the effects of other important parameters were also investigated, such as the severity degree of stenosis and D/S. Finally, the significance and limitations of these simulations were discussed.

Materials and methods

Study design

Seven human subjects (six with stent implantation and one with coronary artery bypass grafting) underwent computer tomography angiography (CTA) of coronary arteries. Morphometric data of the epicardial LMCA tree was reconstructed from CTA images. The three-dimensional geometrical model was meshed, and the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations were solved using a transient finite volume method. The inlet boundary conditions were the aortic pressure waves before and during EECP. The outlet boundary conditions were flow resistances.

Ethics statement

This is an observational, retrospective study which was performed in compliance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking University Third Hospital and all patients had signed informed consent.

Imaging acquisition

All studies were performed on a dual-source CT scanner (Siemens Definition, Forchheim, Germany). After an initial survey scan, a retrospectively gated contrast-enhanced scan was performed using 80 ml of iodinated contrast (Iopromide-Ultravist 370, Bayer Healthcare, Morristown, USA) injection through an antecubital vein at 5 ml/s followed by 50 ml of normal saline at the same rate. The scan parameters were: 2 × 64 × 0.6 mm collimation, tube voltage– 120 kV; tube current–average 620 mAs adjusted to body size; gantry rotation time– 330 msec; pitch– 0.2–0.43 depending on heart rate. The simultaneous acquisition of multi-parallel cross sections enabled the imaging of coronary artery in a single breath hold. Images were reconstructed with a slice thickness/increment of 0.7/0.4 mm with B26f at temporal resolution of 83 msec (half-scan). The initial data window was positioned at 70% of the R-R interval, with additional data sets reconstructed at ±5% intervals to compensate for motion artifacts in coronary arteries if necessary.

In order to get the aortic pressure, pulse wave analysis (SphygmoCor Version 9, AtCor Medical Pty. Ltd, Australia) was performed on each patient before and during EECP treatment. Pressure oscillations generated by brachial arterial pulsation are transmitted to brachial blood pressure cuff, measured by a transducer and then fed into a microprocessor. Computerized software records pulse wave of brachial artery and derives central aortic pulse wave with a validated generalized transfer factor.

Geometrical models

Morphometric data of epicardial LMCA trees were extracted from patients’ CTA images using the MIMICS software (Materialise, NV, Belgium). Based on the morphometric data, geometrical models were generated using the Geomagic Studio software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, USA) and then meshed using ANSYS ICEM (ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, USA), as shown in Fig 1A and 1B. A mesh dependency was conducted such that the relative error in two consecutive mesh refinements was < 1% for the maximum velocity of steady state flow with inlet flow velocity equal to the time-averaged velocity over a cardiac cycle. A total of approximately 500,000 tetrahedral shaped volume elements (element size = 0.2 mm) were necessary to accurately mesh the computational domain.

Fig 1

Geometrical model reconstructed from CTA (A) and computational meshes (B) in the epicardial LMCA tree of a representative patient.

3-D computational model

The governing equations were formulated for coronary arteries, each vessel of which was assumed to be rigid and impermeable. Navier-Stokes and continuity equations were solved using the commercial software solver FLUENT (ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, USA). Similar to previous studies [28], three cardiac cycles were required to achieve convergence for the transient analysis. The implicit Euler method was used and a constant time step was employed, where Δt = 0.01 s with 80 total time step per cardiac cycle. Although blood is a suspension of particles, it behaves as a Newtonian fluid in vessels with diameters > 1 mm [29]. The measured aortic pressure waves before or during EECP (Fig 2A and 2E) were set as the boundary condition at the inlet of LMCA trees. It was assumed that the distribution of the resting blood flow in normal coronary arteries obeyed scale laws [30], so the resistance of each coronary outlet (R) was computed by the total coronary resistance (R) and a morphometry factor (N), which was inversely related to the branch diameters [30, 31]. Many physiological studies have shown that the coronary pressure-flow lines were concave toward the flow axis at lower pressures [32,33], and the zero flow pressure intercept at the physiological pressure range (i.e., P0 in this study) exceeded coronary venous or left ventricular diastolic pressure by five to ten-fold [34]. Therefore, P0 was chosen to be 51.7 mmHg [34] to determine P (the pressure at each outlet) and R through iterative procedures (see details in S1 Appendix), which was similar to a previous study [35]. The viscosity (μ) and density (ρ) of the solution were assumed as 4.5×10−3 Pa·s and 1060 kg/m3 respectively to mimic blood flow with a hematocrit of about 45% in these arteries [36]. After the velocity and pressure of the blood flow were calculated, hemodynamic parameters including TAWSS and OSI were determined from the equations in the S1 Appendix. Moreover, SAR-TAWSS (surface area ratio of TAWSS that equals to , where surface area near a bifurcation denotes 10mm length from the distal bifurcation to daughter vessels, and surface area of TAWSS ≤ 4 dynes/cm2 is high-risk area which may induce coronary heart disease [14-19]) and SAR-OSI (surface area ratio of high OSI that equals to , where surface area of OSI ≥ 0.15 is high-risk area) were computed at coronary bifurcations using the method in Ref. [31]. The average peak velocity along the main trunk of epicardial left anterior descending artery (LAD) was computed. The curve fitting in Fig 6 was presented using Matlab software (R2014a, MathWorks, USA).

Fig 2

(A-D) Measured aortic pressure wave (A), TAWSS (B), OSI (C) and flow field (D) in the epicardial LMCA tree of a representative patient before EECP; (E-H) measured aortic pressure wave (E), TAWSS (F), OSI (G) and flow field (H) in the epicardial LMCA tree of the patient during EECP. The small figures for TAWSS and OSI show the posterior view. The small figures for flow field show the zoomed view.

Fig 6

The graph of fitted function of SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio (during EECP vs. before EECP) with D/S.

Results

CFD simulations were performed in the epicardial LMCA trees of seven human subjects. A representative LMCA tree is shown in Fig 1A. Based on this tree, Figs 2–5 were constructed, with Figs 3–5 presenting several kinds of idealized stenoses. Fig 6 and Table 3 covered all seven patients who received EECP with different D/S values (0.26, 0.38, 0.65, 0.79, 0.92, 1.21, 1.72). All the trees in Fig 6 were original trees without idealized stenoses.

Fig 5

In correspondence with Fig 1A, TAWSS (A), OSI (B) and flow field (C) in the epicardial tree that has an idealized 75% area stenosis at the parent vessel (stenotic length of 7.3 mm) and an idealized 75% area stenosis at the large daughter vessel (stenotic length of 7.9 mm) in the first bifurcation of LAD arterial tree before EECP; TAWSS (D), OSI (E) and flow field (F) in the same tree during EECP. The small figures for TAWSS and OSI show the posterior view. The small figures for flow field show the zoomed view.

Fig 3

In correspondence with Fig 1A, TAWSS (A), OSI (B) and flow field (C) in the epicardial tree that has an idealized 75% area stenosis at the parent vessel (stenotic length of 7.3 mm) in the first bifurcation of LAD arterial tree before EECP; TAWSS (D), OSI (E) and flow field (F) in the same tree during EECP. The small figures for TAWSS and OSI show the posterior view. The small figures for flow field show the zoomed view.

Table 3

The variation of SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio (during EECP vs. before EECP) in seven patients with different D/S (the real value of D/S during EECP).

D/S	SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio
0.26	4.6%
0.38	5.6%
0.65	8.3%
0.79	11.3%
0.92	13.8%
1.21	22.2%
1.72	38.5%

The patient in Figs 1–5 received EECP with D/S of 1.21. The aortic pressure wave in Fig 2A was measured before the patient received EECP treatment, while the aortic pressure wave in Fig 2E was measured during EECP treatment. Fig 2B–2D show the distribution of TAWSS, OSI and flow field in the epicardial LMCA tree in Fig 1A. Fig 2F–2H show the distribution of those hemodynamic parameters in the epicardial LMCA tree under pressure in Fig 2E, which lead to decreased SAR-TAWSS (as shown in Table 1) and more regular flows downstream in the first bifurcation of LAD arterial tree (as shown in Fig 2H vs. Fig 2D). The corresponding average peak velocity along the epicardial LAD main trunk was presented in Table 2. In comparison with the case before EECP, the LAD main trunk decreased the pressure drop during EECP.

Table 1

SAR-TAWSS and SAR-OSI at the mother vessel in the first bifurcation of LAD arterial tree.

	SAR-TAWSS	SAR-OSI
Original tree before EECP	7.2%	0%
Original tree during EECP	5.6%	0%
75% stenosis before EECP	12.3%	6.8%
75% stenosis during EECP	6.7%	2.5%
50% stenosis before EECP	8.8%	3.2%
50% stenosis during EECP	5.3%	0%
Serial stenoses before EECP	26.8%	13.1%
Serial stenoses during EECP	7.7%	4.6%

Table 2

Average peak velocity along the epicardial LAD main trunk.

	Average peak velocity (cm/s)
	Before EECP	During EECP
Original tree	Case 1a	Case 2b
	6.83	11.57
75% stenosis	Case 3c	Case 4d
	7.86	18.25
50% stenosis	Case 5e	Case 6f
	7.12	13.88
Serial stenoses	Case 7g	Case 8h
	8.91	23.61

Case 1: original tree before EECP in Fig 2B; Case 2: original tree during EECP in Fig 2F

Case 3: a 75% stenosis before EECP in Fig 3A; Case 4: a 75% stenosis during EECP in Fig 3D

Case 5: a 50% stenosis before EECP in Fig 4A; Case 6: a 50% stenosis during EECP in Fig 4D

Case 7: serial stenoses before EECP in Fig 5A; Case 8: serial stenoses during EECP in Fig 5D

Fig 4

In correspondence with Fig 1A, TAWSS (A), OSI (B) and flow field (C) in the epicardial tree that has an idealized 50% area stenosis at the parent vessel (stenotic length of 7.3 mm) in the first bifurcation of LAD arterial tree before EECP; TAWSS (D), OSI (E) and flow field (F) in the same tree during EECP. The small figures for TAWSS and OSI show the posterior view. The small figures for flow field show the zoomed view.

TAWSS and OSI were computed, and flow field was graphed in the epicardial LMCA tree that had an idealized severe stenosis (75% area stenosis) at the parent vessel in the first LAD bifurcation before and during EECP respectively, as shown in Fig 3A–3F. In comparison with original trees, the trees with severe stenosis demonstrated decreased SAR-TAWSS, increased SAR-OSI and complex flow patterns (significantly increased flow vortices and secondary flows distal to the stenosis). As shown in Fig 3D–3F and Tables 1 and 2, EECP at the tree with a severe stenosis significantly improved the hemodynamic conditions (i.e., significant decreased flow vortices and secondary flows distal to the stenosis) and reduced atherosclerosis-prone zones (i.e., about 50% reduction of SAR-TAWSS and SAR-OSI). Compared with severe stenosis, an idealized mild stenosis (50% area stenosis) was created at the parent vessel in the first LAD bifurcation, and the distribution of TAWSS, OSI and flow field (before EECP and during EECP, respectively) were shown in Fig 4A–4F.

Moreover, serial stenoses were created at the parent vessel (75% area stenosis, stenotic length of 7.3 mm) and large daughter vessel (75% area stenosis, stenotic length of 7.9 mm) in the first LAD bifurcation, and the distribution of TAWSS, OSI and flow field (before EECP and during EECP, respectively) were shown in Fig 5A–5F. Serial severe stenoses significantly deteriorated hemodynamic conditions (i.e., increased flow vortices and secondary flows distal to both of the stenoses, as shown in Fig 5C) and significantly increased the peak pressure gradient along the epicardial LAD main trunk (as shown in Table 2). EECP at the tree with serial severe stenoses improved the hemodynamic condition to a more significant extent than the case of a single severe stenosis (Fig 5 vs. Fig 3, Tables 1 and 2).

Furthermore, the variation of SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio (during EECP vs. before EECP) in seven patients with different D/S (the real value of D/S during EECP they received) was shown in Table 3, with each row denoting a patient. When D/S was very small, the SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio was also very small, showing that small D/S could only improve the hemodynamic condition mildly. The SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio significantly increased as D/S became larger. The curve fitting of SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio (during EECP vs. before EECP) with D/S was presented in Fig 6. The exponential function f(x) = ae+c was used, where a = 0.0932, b = 0.9359 and c = -0.07876, with R-square value of 0.9966.

Discussion

As shown in Fig 2B–2D, a normal tree with a mild stenosis (about 10% area stenosis) at the parent vessel in the first bifurcation of LAD artery led to mildly deteriorated hemodynamic conditions (i.e., decreased TAWSS and increased OSI) and complex flow patterns (increased flow vortices and secondary flows distal to the stenosis). In comparison with Fig 2B–2D, when the normal tree received EECP with D/S of 1.21 (Fig 2E), hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns could be improved, and mild secondary flows downstream of the first bifurcation was also observed (Fig 2H). The TAWSS near the first bifurcation of LAD artery (10mm length from the distal bifurcation to the large and the small daughter vessel) increased from 24.3 dynes/cm2 (before EECP) to 46.7 dynes/cm2 (during EECP), which was consistent with previous studies [1, 3, 27]. As shown in Table 1, SAR-TAWSS reduced from 7.2% to 5.6%, indicating that EECP may improve hemodynamic conditions and decrease atherosclerosis-prone zones (i.e., a decrease of SAR-TAWSS). Similar to previous studies [6, 27], the average peak velocity significantly increased from 6.83 cm/s to 11.57 cm/s during EECP. These results significantly demonstrate that EECP could improve endothelial function in coronary arteries by altering the hemodynamic conditions.

In comparison with the original trees, when the tree with a severe stenosis received EECP with D/S of 1.21, hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns could be restored to a more significant extent (Fig 3). Meanwhile, SAR-TAWSS reduced by 45.5% (the computational formula was (12.3%-6.7%)/(12.3%)) from 12.3% to 6.7%, and SAR-OSI reduced by 63.2% from 6.8% to 2.5%, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, EECP with large D/S may be beneficial for patients with severe atherosclerosis (i.e., by improving their hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns). However, EECP could only serve as an adjuvant therapy for severe atherosclerotic patients, because there were still strong secondary flows in the second LAD bifurcation (Fig 3F vs. Fig 2H), which may be a risk factor for restenosis after PCI and needs further investigation.

Compared with the case of severe stenosis, when the tree with a mild stenosis received EECP with D/S of 1.21 (Fig 2E), hemodynamic conditions and flow patterns were restored to a lesser extent. SAR-TAWSS reduced by 39.8% from 8.8% to 5.3%, and SAR-OSI reduced from 3.2% to 0% (but OSI at some area was very close to the critical value of 1.5). Meanwhile, for mild atherosclerotic patients, EECP could restore hemodynamic conditions with low values of SAR-TAWSS and SAR-OSI (i.e., SAR-OSI decreased to 0%, ref [36]) and more regular flow patterns (i.e., the decrease of flow vortices and secondary flows in Fig 4F vs. Fig 4C). Therefore, it was a relatively effective conservative treatment.

However, greater extent of improvement does not mean better therapeutic effect. For example, in the case of a severe stenosis, strong secondary flows still occurred (Fig 3F). In comparison, the improvement of hemodynamic conditions was more significant in original tree and mild stenosis (Fig 2H and Fig 4F), with no significant secondary flows or vortices and significant decrease of high-risk atherosclerotic area (SAR-TAWSS<6%, SAR-OSI = 0% during EECP). Therefore, the therapeutic effect of EECP could be better for a tree with a mild stenosis than a tree with a severe stenosis. Our findings are consistent with Chen et al., who found that “under this counterpulsation mode, the therapeutic effect became worse with the increased rate of coronary artery stenosis” [27].

Furthermore, the condition of the tree suffering serial severe stenoses was also analyzed. Serial severe stenoses significantly deteriorated hemodynamic conditions (i.e., increased flow vortices and secondary flows distal to both of the stenoses, as shown in Fig 5C), which may be a key risk factor for restenosis after PCI. When the tree was receiving EECP with D/S of 1.21 (Fig 2E), the hemodynamic condition was improved (i.e., the strong flow vortices and secondary flows almost disappeared, Fig 5F vs. Fig 5C), and atherosclerosis-prone zones reduced significantly (i.e., SAR-TAWSS reduced by 71.3% from 26.8% to 7.7%., and SAR-OSI reduced by 64.9% from 13.1% to 4.6%). Therefore, EECP with large D/S was also beneficial for severe atherosclerotic patients. Considering its effect in restoring the hemodynamic conditions of patients preparing for PCI, EECP was not only an excellent adjuvant therapy after PCI, but also might be an excellent conservative treatment before PCI.

D/S was an important parameter of EECP. In general, large value of D/S (>1.2) could significantly increase coronary perfusion pressure [6,7]. According to the reality of patients, the actual D/S was mostly lower than 1.2. However, the small D/S could still improve the hemodynamic conditions of patients (Table 3). Therefore, if a patient cannot receive EECP with a large value of D/S, which may make the patient uncomfortable or induce hypertension, he/she could choose EECP with a certain value of D/S suggested by the doctor based on the prediction data and experience. In this situation, EECP with small D/S would be an effective adjuvant therapy. As the value of D/S increases, the improvement of the hemodynamic conditions tends to be more significant (i.e., SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio increased rapidly, as shown in Table 3). More importantly, SAR-TAWSS reduction ratio even showed exponential growth with D/S (Fig 6). The study indicated that when a patient could sustain EECP with a large value of D/S (usually >1.2), the improvement in hemodynamic conditions could be very significant. However, more tests are needed to confirm this finding.

Several limitations need to be considered when interpreting the findings. In this study, the sample of patients was too small to find various degrees of coronary artery stenoses, so the idealized stenoses were created in LMCA trees. Different degrees of coronary artery stenoses should be divided into three groups (health trees, mild stenoses, and severe stenoses) in future studies. Besides, we used the aortic pressure waves to surrogate the inlet pressure waves of LMCA as the inlet boundary conditions. Because the pressure in the aorta is greater than that in the the LMCA, it may induce the overestimation of TAWSS. If the pressure waves of LMCA could be measured in the future, we can use more actual inlet boundary conditions. Moreover, the effects of non-newtonian fluid (especially the viscoelastic effect of blood) and elastic vessel walls were not considered in this study, which may lead to the overestimation of TAWSS [34]. More accurate models should be used in the future.

Conclusions

A key finding of the study was that the improvement of hemodynamic conditions (i.e., average velocity, TAWSS, OSI and flow field) along the LMCA trees during EECP became more significant with the increase of D/S (approximately exponential growth) and the severity degree of stenosis at the bifurcations. Moreover, EECP with a low value of D/S (<1.2) could still improve the hemodynamic conditions of patients. The hemodynamic analysis in the epicardial coronary arterial tree improves our understandings of EECP as adjuvant therapy before or after PCI in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis.

[37], [38], [39], [40], [41].

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-21646

The improvement of the shear stress of coronary arteries during Enhanced External Counterpulsation in patients with coronary heart disease

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will see from the comments of the reviewer major points of critique were raised, especially regarding presentation of the manuscript and referencing of published literature.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within 2 months. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present study is a numerical simulation on intracoronary hemodynamics caused by enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). Authors used clinically measured aortic pressure and flow resistance model as the boundary conditions for the calculation of CFD. Through the analysis of various model with differing boundary (the ratio of diastolic pressure and systolic pressure (D/S)), some quantitative results and conclusions were acquired. It is an interesting work. However, some questions must be answered before the consideration for publishing in the PLOS ONE.

Major comments:

1. The present study calculated the variation of both wall shear stress (WSS) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) Shear stress before and during EECP. Why only WSS was emphasized in the title but not OSI?

2. In Abstract: oscillatory shear index (OSI) was mentioned in the Methods section, while no data were presented to demonstrate the variation of OSI before and during EECP and its impact on the coronary heart disease.

3. In Methods, it is necessary to describe that how the aortic pressure was measured.

4. In Methods, more details should be presented to explain the outlet boundary condition (flow resistances model).

5. Authors declared that the ratio of diastolic pressure and systolic pressure (D/S) is an important acute indicator during EECP. A reference will be helpful here (see doi: 10.1007/s11517-018-1834-z).

6. In Discussion, authors declared that the finding in this paper was consistent with the previous study (Chen et al.). However, there seems no conflict between your conclusions. Please check it carefully.

Minor comments:

1. In line 31, page 3, the comma before “The aortic pressure wave…” should be full stop.

2. In line 40, page 3, the reference [4] should be at the end of the sentence.

3. In line 43, page 3, the abbreviation “CHD” should be explained when it appeared first time in the main text.

4. In line 61, page 4, the sentence should be revised to “Recently, the CFD methods have been adopted to non-invasively determine the fractional flow reserve (FFR)”.

5. The references should be numbered so as to be reviewed conveniently.

6. There are other grammar, spelling and format mistakes, please revised the manuscript carefully.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Dec 2019

Thanks to the professional comments given by the reviewer, we have made corresponding changes to the manuscript and benefited a lot from re-examination.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-21646R1

The improvement of the shear stress and oscillatory shear index of coronary arteries during Enhanced External Counterpulsation in patients with coronary heart disease

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will recognize from the comments of the reviewer some remaining minor points of critique were raised, especially regarding presentation of data.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within 2 months. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: After revision, the manuscript was significantly improved. However, there is still a minor question about the paper. It is acceptable for Plos One after the further revision.

Minor comments:

In page 6 of Methods, authors introduced the flow resistance model in the outlet boundary. However, no data was presented to be examined. The value of resistances are supposed to be available.

Besides, a suggestion for authors is that they should answer the questions point to point in a separate document for reviewing in their future submission.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Jan 2020

Response: We revised the Appendix to elaborate on the resistance boundary condition. It is very difficult for current experimental techniques to non-invasively and accurately determine the boundary conditions at the outlet of patient epicardial coronary arterial trees. Many computational approaches (e.g., growth of distal subtrees, multiple-element Windkessel model, hybrid one-dimensional/Womersley model, scaling laws, and so on) have been proposed to determine the outlet boundary conditions. There is debate on these methods, however, in comparison with invasive measurements. Gijsen’s group has recently shown the advantage of the scaling law approach (J. Biomech. 44:1089, 2011). Hence, we have selected the scaling law to determine the value of resistances as the outlet boundary conditions.

In addition, we are very grateful for the reviewer's comments, and we must pay attention to answering the questions point to point in separate files in the future.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Feb 2020

The improvement of the shear stress and oscillatory shear index of coronary arteries during Enhanced External Counterpulsation in patients with coronary heart disease

PONE-D-19-21646R2

Dear Dr. Zhao,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

9 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-21646R2

The improvement of the shear stress and oscillatory shear index of coronary arteries during Enhanced External Counterpulsation in patients with coronary heart disease

Dear Dr. Zhao:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Rudolf Kirchmair

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE