Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vascular Compliance

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vascular Compliance

    Hello Biomechanists,

    Recently I've been reading some studies of the compliance of the
    human aorta - studies that were intrinsically
    physical in character, but that were conducted by medically qualified
    people. The poor science that has been conducted deserves
    commentary, but I will not name names. This is more in the way of a
    cautionary note to those reading in the field!

    Most of the studies are rendered almost useless by poor
    experimental design and interpretation of the results - aortic
    distensibility depends on age, the instantaneous degree to which
    the aorta has already been stretched when its distensibility is
    measured, the exact location of the measurement in the aorta
    (compliance decreases tenfold from the aortic sinuses to the aortic
    bifurcation), and the pressure fluctuation that has caused it to
    distend - the pressure pulse changes its wave shape and amplitude
    significantly from the aortic valve to the bifurcation. Typical
    errors in the studies that have been published are:

    1 To neglect the increase in mean blood pressure in older
    patients, and thus the fact that the aorta is stretched tighter
    before any change in distensibility due to age-related tissue
    changes are taken into account. Not all apparent stiffening is
    due to age.

    2 To take measurements of distention all the way along the aorta, but
    to subsequently calculate aortic distensibility from the blood pressure as
    measured in the proximal ascending aorta, rather than locally.

    3 To think that distensibility (compliance) is a constant value,
    rather than one that varies radically with the hoop strain near
    the limit of normal physiologic hoop strain.

    4 To recognize changes in distensibility with hoop strain, but to
    calculate the instantaneous hoop modulus on the basis of the
    end-diastolic hoop stress, or hoop stress taking into account the
    change in diameter, but ignoring the change in aortic wall
    thickness.

    One paper published by a group of German cardiologists and a single
    engineer has compliance values that are incorrect by a factor of
    roughly 16900! The fact that these values are repeated in the
    discussion means that the authors have no idea of the magnitude of
    stiffness and elasticity values. More worrying is the conclusion
    that the referees didn't either. There is much misleading published
    work - and there are some erroneous conclusions. In the
    case of the aorta I have concluded that age-related changes in aortic
    compliance are in fact mildly to greatly exaggerated by many
    investigators, due to plain bad science. When stats is applied to such
    bad data, of course the answer is highly statistically significant
    nonsense. Perhaps this field needs to be "tightened up"?

    Mark W Swanepoel, PhD
    School of Mechanical Engineering
    University of the Witwatersrand
    South Africa
    Tel: 0927 (0)11 716 2578
    Fax: 0927 (0)11 339 7997

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
    For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
Working...
X