4.6 Article

Effects of age-associated regional changes in aortic stiffness on human hemodynamics revealed by computational modeling

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173177

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 HL086418, R01 HL105297]
  2. European Research Council [307532]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [307532] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although considered by many as the gold standard clinical measure of arterial stiffness, carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) averages material and geometric properties over a large portion of the central arterial tree. Given that such properties may evolve differentially as a function of region in cases of hypertension and aging, among other conditions, there is a need to evaluate the potential utility of cf-PWV as an early diagnostic of progressive vascular stiffening. In this paper, we introduce a data-driven fluid-solid-interaction computational model of the human aorta to simulate effects of aging-related changes in regional wall properties (e.g., biaxial material stiffness and wall thickness) and conduit geometry (e.g., vessel caliber, length, and tortuosity) on several metrics of arterial stiffness, including distensibility, augmented pulse pressure, and cyclic changes in stored elastic energy. Using the best available biomechanical data, our results for PWV compare well to findings reported for large population studies while rendering a higher resolution description of evolving local and global metrics of aortic stiffening. Our results reveal similar spatio-temporal trends between stiffness and its surrogate metrics, except PWV, thus indicating a complex dependency of the latter on geometry. Lastly, our analysis highlights the importance of the tethering exerted by external tissues, which was iteratively estimated until hemodynamic simulations recovered typical values of tissue properties, pulse pressure, and PWV for each age group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据