4.6 Article

On the examination of the viscous response of the brachial artery during flow-mediated dilation

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105255

关键词

Flow mediated dilation; Fluid-structure interaction; Mechanotransduction; Wall shear stress; Viscoelastic model

资金

  1. National Science Foundation's [2003077, 1511096]
  2. National Institute of Health [R21 EB005326]
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  4. Directorate For Engineering [2003077] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, mechanotransduction is investigated using a viscoelastic model to describe the arterial diameter response during a brachial artery flow mediated dilation (BAFMD) test. The results show that the mechanical behavior of the arterial wall is predominantly elastic.
In this study, mechanotransduction is investigated through a physics-based viscoelastic model describing the arterial diameter response during a brachial artery flow mediated dilation (BAFMD) test. The study is a significant extension of two earlier studies by the same group, where only the elastic response was considered. Experimental BAFMD responses were collected from 12 healthy volunteers. The arterial wall's elastic and viscous properties were treated as local variable quantities depending on the wall shear stress (WSS) sensed by mechanotransduction. The dimensionless parameters, arising from the model which serve as a quantitative assessment of the artery's physical state, were adjusted to replicate the experimental response. Among those dimensionless parameters, the viscoelastic ratio, which reflects the relative strength of the viscous response compared to its elastic counterpart, is of special relevance to this paper's main conclusion. Based on the results, it is concluded that the arterial wall's mechanical behavior is predominantly elastic, at least in the strict context of the BAFMD test. Recommendations for potential future research and applications are provided.

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