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.
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.
Effect estimate: r = 0.989
We determined total arterial compliance from pressure and flow in the ascending aorta of seven anesthetized dogs using the pulse pressure method (PPM) and the decay time method (DTM). Compliance was determined under control and during occlusion of the aorta at four different locations (iliac, renal, diaphragm, and proximal descending thoracic aorta). Compliance of PPM gave consistently lower values (0.893 +/- 0.015) compared with the compliance of DTM (means +/- SE; r = 0.989). The lower compliance estimates by the PPM can be attributed to the difference in mean pressures at which compliance is determined (mean pressure, 81.0 +/- 3.6 mmHg; mean diastolic pressure, over which the DTM applies, 67.0 +/- 3.6 mmHg). Total arterial compliance under control conditions was 0.169 +/- 0. 007 ml/mmHg. Compliance of the proximal aorta, obtained during occlusion of the proximal descending aorta, was 0.100 +/- 0.007 ml/mmHg. Mean aortic pressure was 80.4 +/- 3.6 mmHg during control and 102 +/- 7.7 mmHg during proximal descending aortic occlusion. From these results and assuming that upper limbs and the head contribute as little as the lower limbs, we conclude that 60% of total arterial compliance resides in the proximal aorta. When we take into account the inverse relationship between pressure and compliance, the contribution of the proximal aorta to the total arterial compliance is even more significant.
Stergiopulos et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in 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.