4.1 Article

Microvascular Flow Modeling using In Vivo Hemodynamic Measurements in Reconstructed 3D Capillary Networks

期刊

MICROCIRCULATION
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 510-520

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1549-8719.2012.00178.x

关键词

blood flow; capillary networks; oxygen transport modeling; red blood cell supply rate

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP 102504]
  2. National Institute of Health [HL089125]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Please cite this paper as: Fraser GM, Goldman D, Ellis CG. Microvascular flow modeling using in vivo hemodynamic measurements in reconstructed 3D capillary networks. Microcirculation similar to 19: 510520, 2012. Abstract Objective: We describe a systematic approach to modeling blood flow using reconstructed capillary networks and in vivo hemodynamic measurements. Our goal was to produce flow solutions that represent convective O2 delivery in vivo. Methods: Two capillary networks, I and II (84 x 168 x 342 and 70 x 157 x 268 mu m3), were mapped using custom software. Total network red blood cell supply rate (SR) was calculated from in vivo data and used as a target metric for the flow model. To obtain inlet hematocrits, mass balances were applied recursively from downstream vessels. Pressure differences across the networks were adjusted to achieve target SR. Baseline flow solutions were used as inputs to existing O2 transport models. To test the impact of flow redistribution, asymmetric flow solutions (Asym) were generated by applying a +/- 20% pressure change to network outlets. Results: Asym solutions produced a mean absolute difference in SR per capillary of 27.6 +/- 33.3% in network I and 33.2 +/- 40.1% in network II vs. baseline. The O2 transport model calculated mean tissue PO2 of 28.2 +/- 4.8 and 28.1 +/- 3.5 mmHg for baseline and 27.6 +/- 5.2 and 27.7 +/- 3.7 mmHg for Asym. Conclusions: This outcome illustrates that moderate changes in flow distribution within a capillary network have little impact on tissue PO2 provided that total SR remains unchanged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据