Key result
Uncorrelated carotid and forearm pressure-decay constants demonstrate a single Windkessel model cannot describe arterial circulation.
Why the study?
It was uncertain whether all arterial regions share the same Windkessel characteristics related to arterial stiffness and if a single Windkessel model can describe the arterial circulation.
Cross-Sectional (n=98)
No
Arterial pressure-decay constants and Windkessel compliances are regional rather than systemic indicators, indicating that a single Windkessel model cannot adequately describe the arterial circulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Site-specific tau differences caution against single Windkessel assumptions; leaves open validation of multi-compartment arterial models.
Windkessel (WK) models have often been used to simulate the arterial circulation. We studied a critical characteristic of WK function, the arterial pressure-decay constant tau, to test whether all arterial regions share the same WK characteristics, which should theoretically be related to arterial stiffness. We performed carotid and forearm arterial tonometry (Sphygmocor) and modeled arterial pressure (P) as A + (SBP − A)·exp[−(t − t0)/tau], where A = minimum pressure, SBP = systolic BP, t = time, t0 = start of decay). Model validity was supported by strong between-site correlations for t0 and A. We also measured central and peripheral Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV, Colin VP1000) and calculated arterial compliances (1/PWV2) in the heart-femoral (hf) and femoral-ankle (fa) regions. For the full cohort [n = 98, mean (SD): age 50 (20) years, weight 81 (17) kg, BP 135/77 (17/12) mmHg, 38% female], carotid and forearm taus were different [283 (126) vs. 199 (88) ms, p < 0.000] and uncorrelated (r2 = 0.01). Although hf and fa arterial compliances were well correlated (p < 0.000), neither was closely correlated with carotid or forearm tau (r2 < 0.06). In a subset (n = 22), carotid and brachial blood flow (Ultramark 9) were measured and regional WK compliances were calculated (= tau/regional resistance). Carotid blood flow [571 (216) vs. 117 (84) mL/min, p < 0.000] and WK compliance [0.031 (0.017) vs. 0.004 (0.004) mL/mmHg, p < 0.000] were much higher than corresponding forearm values. We conclude that: (1) tau and WK compliance are regional, not systemic indicators, (2) neither carotid nor forearm tau reflects large artery stiffness, and (3) a single WK model cannot adequately describe the arterial circulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Izzo et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Normotension and hypertension (n=98). Carotid arterial region vs. Forearm arterial region was evaluated on Arterial pressure-decay constant (tau) (p=<0.000). Carotid and forearm arterial pressure-decay constants (tau) were significantly different (283 vs. 199 ms, p<0.000) and uncorrelated, demonstrating that a single Windkessel model cannot adequately describe the arterial circulation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: