plot pressure wavweform inlet and coronary

[Luca Gontier]

I will try some change in the compliance to see how the pressure change. Hope to find the correct value and waveform.
Thank you

[Luca Gontier]

I can still ask a question. The flow file i use for the aortic inflow (scaled_pulse_flow.flow) i read is for a heart period of 1 second and a cardiac output of 90.7 mL/s. In the aortic outflow the R_tot is calculated assuming a cardiac output Q=80 mL/s. Why this difference. i need to adjust the value to match the cardiac output, or the 80 mL/s it is the cardiac aortic output after the coronary who is lower than the output from the hearth?

Thanks again

[Justin Tran]

Hi Luca,

Thank you for your question. The difference in cardiac output you observe is an oversight on our part. You are right in that when you calculate your total resistance values, you should use the cardiac output that you are prescribing for your model. So for the tutorial case, you should calculate the total resistance using 90.7 mL/s, which matches the inflow boundary condition.

[Luca Gontier]

If i correct understand your flow file (scaled pluse flow) is set for a cardiac output of 90.7?,
and i need to recalcalculate the total resistamce for the r_tot outflow with 90.7 in place of 80.

If i want to creare a flow file curve similar to yours do you have some suggestion how to procede for a inferior flow.

Thanks

[Justin Tran]

You can do either option! You can re-calculate your resistances based on the 90.7 cardiac output, or you can scale the flow waveform file to have 80.0 cardiac output.

To scale the waveform, we suggest dividing each flow data point at each time by the mean flow (90.7 in this case). This will give you a "normalized" flow waveform with a mean flow of 1 mL/s. You can then multiply every flow by your new desired mean flow. The resulting waveform will have the same shape as before but with a different mean flow.

[Wei Wu]

Hi,
I recalculate the cardicac output, using the "area under the curve", and the result is 91.55ml/s instead of 90.7 ml/s. The 90.7ml/s Luca got is calculated by averaging of the flow curves. But I think "area under the curve" should be more accurate.
Any comments are so appreciated!