Noninvasive method for determination of arterial compliance using Doppler echocardiography and subclavian pulse tracings. Validation and clinical application of a physiological model of the circulation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The Poiseuillian model of the arterial system currently applied in clinical physiology does not explain how arterial pressure is maintained during diastole after cessation of pulsatile aortic inflow. Arterial pressure-flow relations can be more accurately described by models that incorporate arterial viscoelastic properties such as arterial compliance. Continuous pressure and flow measurements are needed to evaluate these properties. Since the techniques used to date to acquire such data have been invasive, physiological models of the circulation that incorporate these properties have not been widely applied in the clinical setting. The purpose of this study was (1) to validate noninvasive methods for continuous measurement of central arterial pressure and flow and (2) to determine normal reference values for arterial compliance using physiological models of the circulation applied to the noninvasively acquired pressure and flow data. METHODS AND RESULTS Simultaneously acquired invasive and noninvasive aortic pressures (30 patients), flows (8 patients), and arterial mechanical properties (8 patients) were compared. Pressure was measured by high-fidelity catheter aortic micromanometer (invasive) and calibrated subclavian pulse tracing (noninvasive). Aortic inflow was determined from thermodilution-calibrated electromagnetic flow velocity data (invasive) and echo-Doppler data (noninvasive). Arterial compliance was determined for two- and three-element windkessel models of the circulation using the area method and an iterative procedure, respectively. Once validated, the noninvasive methodology was used to determine normal compliance values for a reference population of 70 subjects (age range, 20 to 81 years) with normal 24-hour ambulatory blood pressures and without Doppler-echocardiographic evidence for structural heart disease. The limits of agreement between invasive and noninvasive pressure data, compared at 10% intervals during ejection and nonejection, were narrow over a wide range of pressures, with no significant differences between methods. Invasive and noninvasive instantaneous aortic inflow values differed slightly but significantly at the start of ejection (P < .05), but during the latter 90% of ejection, values for the two methods were similar, with narrow limits of agreement. Total vascular resistance and arterial compliance values derived from invasive and noninvasive data were similar. Arterial compliance values for the normal population using the two-element model (C2E) ranged from 0.74 to 2.44 cm3/mm Hg (mean, 1.57 +/- 0.38 cm3/mm Hg), with a beat-to-beat variability of 5.2 +/- 3.9%. C2E decreased with increasing age (r = -.73, P < .001) and tended to be higher in men (1.67 +/- 0.41 cm3/mm Hg) than in women (1.51 +/- 0.35 cm3/mm Hg, P = .07). Compliance values for the three-element model (C3E) were predictably smaller than for the two-element model (mean, 1.23 +/- 0.30; range, 0.59 to 2.16 cm3/mm Hg, P < .001 versus C2E) but correlated with C2E values (r = .81, P < .001) and were also inversely related to age (r = -.56, P < .001). Ridge regression and principal component analyses both showed the compliance value to be a composite function whose variation could be best predicted by consideration of simultaneous values for five major hemodynamic determinants: heart rate, mean flow, mean aortic pressure, minimal diastolic pressure, and end-systolic pressure. Multivariate analysis revealed age and sex to be independent predictors of compliance (P < .01 for both). There were no differences in compliance between black and white subjects. CONCLUSIONS Noninvasive methods can be used to acquire the hemodynamic data necessary for clinical application of physiological models of the circulation that incorporate arterial viscoelastic properties such as arterial compliance. The strong inverse linear relation between model-based compliance estimates and age mandates incorporation of this demographic parameter in