2018
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-018-0159-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiscale mathematical modeling vs. the generalized transfer function approach for aortic pressure estimation: a comparison with invasive data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be also noted that given identification (sex and age) and anthropometric parameters (such as weight and height), together with basic cardiovascular information (such as brachial cuff pressure), the model can be made patient-specific. That would provide good estimates of cardiovascular fitness related to the heterogeneity of the crew, similar to what was already done in 1G physiological and pathological conditions 32,34,58 . Cardiovascular deconditioning without ad hoc countermeasures, as modeled here, is of fundamental importance to have a clear and valid baseline for testing against the cardiovascular response with specific countermeasures.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…It should be also noted that given identification (sex and age) and anthropometric parameters (such as weight and height), together with basic cardiovascular information (such as brachial cuff pressure), the model can be made patient-specific. That would provide good estimates of cardiovascular fitness related to the heterogeneity of the crew, similar to what was already done in 1G physiological and pathological conditions 32,34,58 . Cardiovascular deconditioning without ad hoc countermeasures, as modeled here, is of fundamental importance to have a clear and valid baseline for testing against the cardiovascular response with specific countermeasures.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Therefore, this simplifies the measurement process and potentially decreases the total cost of monitoring. Recently, Guala et al published a validation of the same multiscale model using invasive catheter data [67]. Their model provided an underestimation of both central systolic and diastolic pressure values; the difference between the invasive aortic pressure and the model-derived estimates was 4.30±16.70 mmHg for central systolic pressure and 3.80±10.40 mmHg for central diastolic pressure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this approach added 19 more vessel segments to the topology of the coronary circulation model, it was considered preferable for modelling purposes, compared to using generalised transfer functions to represent the LIMA, RIMA, and grafts attached to the ascending aorta. Guala et al ( 30 ) found a 1D-0D lumped parameter model to be more accurate in estimating aortic pressures than generalised transfer functions ( 30 ). Therefore, the patient-specific disease-free coronary circulation was nested within a generic systemic aortic circulation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%