Does a biphasic model better describe limb venous compliance compared to linear and exponential models in human subjects?
A biphasic model accurately describes limb venous compliance and highlights physiological differences between calf and forearm venous circulation at varying pressures.
Compliance is not linear within the physiological range of pressures, and linear modeling may not describe venous physiology adequately. Forearm and calf venous compliance were assessed in nine subjects. Venous compliance was modeled by using a biphasic model with high- and low-pressure linear phases separated by a breakpoint. This model was compared with a linear model and several exponential models. The biphasic, linear, and two-parameter exponential models best represented the data. The mean coefficient of determination for the biphasic model was greater than for the linear and exponential models in the calf (biphasic 0.94 +/- 0.04, exponential 0.81 +/- 0.16, P = not significant; and linear 0.54 +/- 0.05, P < 0.05) and forearm (biphasic 0.83 +/- 0.17, exponential 0.79 +/- 0.15, P = not significant; and linear 0.51 +/- 0.06, P < 0.05). The breakpoint pressure in the biphasic model was higher in the calf than the forearm, 34.4 +/- 3.9 vs. 29.1 +/- 4.5 mmHg, P < 0.05. A biphasic model can describe limb venous compliance and delineate differences in venous physiology at high and low pressures. The steep low-pressure phase of the compliance curve extends to higher pressures in the calf than in the forearm, thereby enlarging the range of pressures over which hemodynamic regulation by the calf venous circulation occurs.
Risk et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: