Key result
The pulse pressure method yielded consistently lower compliance estimates (ratio 0.893 ± 0.015) compared to the decay time method, revealing that 60% of total compliance resides in the proximal aorta.
Population
7 anesthetized dogs
Comparison
Pulse pressure method for estimating total… vs Decay time method (DTM)
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Caution against sole reliance on pulse pressure method clinically; leaves open human validation of proximal aortic compliance dominance.
Effect estimate: r = 0.989
The pulse pressure method yields lower arterial compliance estimates than the decay time method due to differences in mean pressures, and demonstrates that 60% of total arterial compliance resides in the proximal aorta.
Stergiopulos et al. (1999) studied Anesthetized dogs (n=7). Pulse pressure method (PPM) vs. Decay time method (DTM) was evaluated on Total arterial compliance (r = 0.989). The pulse pressure method yielded consistently lower compliance estimates (ratio 0.893 ± 0.015) compared to the decay time method, revealing that 60% of total compliance resides in the proximal aorta.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: