Physics Linkages Between Arterial Morphology, Pulse Wave Reflection and Peripheral Flow

Tucker, Trevor

doi:10.1007/s44200-023-00033-5

Artery Research

Table 2 Measured reflection factor data. In vivo measurement methods included the tonometric measurement of pressure and the Doppler ultrasound, phase contrast MRI and 4D flow MRI measurement of peak velocity and peak flow ratios

From: Physics Linkages Between Arterial Morphology, Pulse Wave Reflection and Peripheral Flow

References	Patient age and gender	Artery	Type	Method	Equation	Reflection factor RF ± SD (%)	Comment
Greenwald et al. (1990) [21]	< 50 Mixed	Abdominal aorta	In vitro	Intra-lumen transducer	1-2AR/PWVR 1 + 2AR/PWVR	10 ± 4	Iliac/aorta bifurcation only
Greenwald et al. (1990) [21]	> 50 Mixed	Abdominal aorta	In vitro	Intra-lumen transducer	1-2AR/PWVR 1 + 2AR/PWVR	10 to 30 ± 8	Iliac/aorta only RF increases with age
Yamamoto et al. (1996) [34]	48 ± 20 Mixed	Renal	In vivo	Doppler ultrasound	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	30 ± 10	Vortical, mixed reverse and forward
Mitchell et al. (2003) [35]	58 ± 9 Male	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	13 ± 5	RF increases with age
Mitchell et al. (2003) [35]	57 ± 9 Female	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	22 ± 8	RF increases with age
Mitchell et al. (2010) [36]	37 ± 7 Mixed	Proximal aorta	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	34 ± 6	Healthy controls, RF increase with age
Hashimoto and Ito (2010) [37]	56 ± 13 Mixed	Femoral	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	28 ± 10	RF decreases with increased aortic PWV
Hashimoto et al. (2011) [38]	56 ± 12 Mixed	Femoral	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	30 ± 10	RF increase with increased PourceIot index
Mitchell et al. (2011) [39]	76 ± 4 Mixed	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	6 ± 3	Carotid/aorta bifurcation only
Hashimoto and Ito (2013) [40]	54 ± 13 Mixed	Thoracic aorta	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	35 ± 10	Reflection increases with PWV gradient
Coutinho (2013) [41]	67 ± 9 Male	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	36 ± 13	cfPWV = 11.9 ± 3.8
Coutinho et al. (2013) [41]	65 ± 9 Female	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	37 ± 13	cfPWV = 10.5 ± 3.4
Bensalah et al. (2014) [42]	27 ± 6 Mixed	Ascending aorta	In vivo	PC MRI	Flow_PeakReverse Flow_PeakForward	11 ± 4	Vortical, mixed reverse and forward
Bensalah et al. (2014) [42]	54 ± 9 Mixed	Ascending aorta	In vivo	PC MRI	Flow_PeakReverse Flow_PeakForward	18 ± 7	Vortical, mixed reverse and forward
Torjesen et al. (2014) [43]	51 ± 15 Male	Central (Aorta?)	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	34 ± 6	RF increases with age
Torjesen et al. (2014) [43]	51 ± 16 Female	Central (Aorta?)	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	36 ± 7	RF increases with age to 55, decreases after age 55
Hashimoto and Ito (2015) [44]	52 ± 12 Mixed	Proximal aorta	In vivo	Doppler US eGFR > 60	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	33 ± 10	Increased RF decreases eGFR
Hashimoto and Ito (2015) [44]	58 ± 13 Mixed	Proximal aorta	In vivo	Doppler US eGFR < 60	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	38 ± 10	Increased RF decreases eGFR
Breton et al. (2016) [45]	40 ± 10Mixed	Brachial	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	24	RF and PWVR increase with age
Breton et al. (2016) [45]	61 ± 9 Mixed	Brachial	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	54	RF and PWVR increase with age
Kim et al. (2017) [46]	59 ± 12 Mixed	Descending aorta	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	40 ± 10	Pulse pressure (PP) PP < 71 mmHg
Kim et al. (2017) [46]	65 ± 9 Mixed	Descending aorta	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	45 ± 10	PP > 71 mmHg, RF and PP increase with age
Jue et al. (2019) [47]	62 + 12 Male	Carotid?	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	39 ± 3	Aortic Aneurysm (AA) RF independent of AA
Jue et al. (2019) [47]	65 + 9 Female	Carotid?	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	46 ± 10	RF increases with AA diameter increase
London et al. (2019) [48]	54 ± 2 Mixed	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	26 ± 2	Normotensive controls
London et al. (2019) [48]	54 ± 1 Mixed	Carotid	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	41 ± 1	Hypertensive, RF increases with PP
Evdochim et al. (2020) [49]	24, Single subject	Brachial	In vivo	Tonometry	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	0 to 50	RF varies with mean pressure, RF = 0 at MAP = 100 mmHg
Jarvis et al. (2020) [50]	36 ± 9 Mixed	Upper aorta	In vivo	4D Flow MRI	Flow_MeanReverse Flow_MeanForward	8 ± 3	Youthful controls, RF affected by mixed reverse, forward flow
Jarvis et al. (2020)[50]	65 ± 8 Mixed	Upper aorta	In vivo	4D Flow MRI	Flow_MeanReverse Flow_MeanForward	15 + 5	Age matched controls RF increase with PWV
Jarvis et al. (2020) [50]	69 ± 9 Mixed	Upper aorta	In vivo	4D Flow MRI	Flow_MeanReverse Flow_MeanForward	17 + 6	Stroke patients RF affected by mixed reverse, forward flow
Haidar et al. (2021) [51]	75 ± 4 Mixed	Carotid and others	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Flow_PeakReverse Flow_PeakForward	34 ± 10	Asymmetric carotid-aorta bifurcation well matched
Haidar et al. (2021) [51]	75 ± 4 Mixed	Carotid and others	In vivo	Tonometry, Doppler US	Pressure_PeakReverse Pressure_PeakForward	41 ± 11	Increased aorta stiffness decreases RF
Hashimoto et al. ( 2022) [52]	55 ± 14 Mixed	Femoral	In vivo	Doppler US	Velocity_PeakReverse Velocity_PeakForward	32 ± 10	Ischemic organ damage with increased Reflection Factor

Back to article page

ISSN: 1876-4401

Contact us

General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com