Research Papers

Comparative Study on Tube-Load Modeling of Arterial Hemodynamics in Humans

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohammad Rashedi

Department of Chemical and
Materials Engineering,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, T6G2V4, Canada

Nima Fazeli

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742

Alyssa Chappell, Barry A. Finegan

Department of Anesthesiology
and Pain Medicine,
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, T6G2G3, Canada

Roderick MacArthur

Department of Medicine (Cardiac Surgery),
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, T6G2B7, Canada

M. Sean McMurtry

Department of Medicine (Cardiology),
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, T6G2S2, Canada

Jin-Oh Hahn

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Manuscript received October 13, 2012; final manuscript received December 1, 2012; accepted manuscript posted January 10, 2013; published online February 11, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Tim David.

J Biomech Eng 135(3), 031005 (Feb 11, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: BIO-12-1481; doi: 10.1115/1.4023373 History: Received October 13, 2012; Revised December 01, 2012; Accepted January 10, 2013

In this paper, we assess the validity of two alternative tube-load models for describing the relationship between central aortic and peripheral arterial blood pressure (BP) waveforms in humans. In particular, a single-tube (1-TL) model and a serially connected two-tube (2-TL) model, both terminated with a Windkessel load, are considered as candidate representations of central aortic-peripheral arterial path. Using the central aortic, radial and femoral BP waveform data collected from eight human subjects undergoing coronary artery bypass graft with cardiopulmonary bypass procedure, the fidelity of the tube-load models was quantified and compared with each other. Both models could fit the central aortic-radial and central aortic-femoral BP waveform pairs effectively. Specifically, the models could estimate pulse travel time (PTT) accurately, and the model-derived frequency response was also close to the empirical transfer function estimate obtained directly from the central aortic and peripheral BP waveform data. However, 2-TL model was consistently superior to 1-TL model with statistical significance as far as the accuracy of the central aortic BP waveform was concerned. Indeed, the average waveform RMSE was 2.52 mmHg versus 3.24 mmHg for 2-TL and 1-TL models, respectively (p < 0.05); the r2 value between measured and estimated central aortic BP waveforms was 0.96 and 0.93 for 2-TL and 1-TL models, respectively (p < 0.05). We concluded that the tube-load models considered in this paper are valid representations that can accurately reproduce central aortic-radial/femoral BP waveform relationships in humans, although the 2-TL model is preferred if an accurate central aortic BP waveform is highly desired.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Tube-load models for representation of a central aortic-peripheral arterial path

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental setup for BP data acquisition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Box plot of tube-load model parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measured versus estimated central aortic BP waveforms and upper/lower-limb frequency responses (subject #4, precardiopulmonary bypass)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Correlation and limits of agreement between measured versus estimated central aortic BP waveforms (subject #4, precardiopulmonary bypass)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Correlation between measured versus estimated PTT values (all subjects, upper- and lower-limb, pre- and post-cardiopulmonary bypass combined)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In