Why the study?
Aortic compliance determines cardiac afterload and contributes to cardiovascular morbidity, but in silico insights into acute and long-term hemodynamic effects were needed.
Does decreased aortic compliance alter central hemodynamics acutely and after left ventricular remodeling in a mathematical model?
Does decreased aortic compliance alter central hemodynamics acutely and after left ventricular remodeling in a mathematical model?
Absolute Event Rate: 152% vs 106%
In silico modeling demonstrates that hypertension following decreased aortic compliance is primarily driven by forward wave enhancement, and that augmentation index is influenced by LV remodeling, challenging its interpretation as solely an arterial parameter.
Aortic compliance is an important determinant of cardiac afterload and a contributor to cardiovascular morbidity. In the present study, we sought to provide in silico insights into the acute as well as long-term effects of aortic compliance decrease on central hemodynamics. To that aim, we used a mathematical model of the cardiovascular system to simulate the hemodynamics (a) of a healthy young adult (baseline), (b) acutely after banding of the proximal aorta, (c) after the heart remodeled itself to match the increased afterload. The simulated pressure and flow waves were used for subsequent wave separation analysis. Aortic banding induced hypertension (SBP 106 mmHg at baseline versus 152 mmHg after banding), which was sustained after left ventricular (LV) remodeling. The main mechanism that drove hypertension was the enhancement of the forward wave, which became even more significant after LV remodeling (forward amplitude 30 mmHg at baseline versus 60 mmHg acutely after banding versus 64 mmHg after remodeling). Accordingly, the forward wave’s contribution to the total pulse pressure increased throughout this process, while the reflection coefficient acutely decreased and then remained roughly constant. Finally, LV remodeling was accompanied by a decrease in augmentation index (AIx 13% acutely after banding versus −3% after remodeling) and a change of the central pressure wave phenotype from the characteristic Type A (“old”) to Type C (“young”) phenotype. These findings provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of hypertension and provoke us to reconsider our understanding of AIx as a solely arterial parameter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pagoulatou et al. (2021) studied Aortic compliance decrease. Simulated aortic banding (80% reduction of proximal aortic compliance) vs. Baseline (healthy young adult model) was evaluated on Aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP) acutely after banding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: