Table 1 Results from the experimental part of this study and comparing literature.

From: Evaluating the accuracy of cerebrovascular computational fluid dynamics modeling through time-resolved experimental validation

 

Experiment

Zarrinkoob et al. 5,6

Flow rate ± s.d (mL min−1)

tCBF fraction (%)

PI ± s.d (–)

Flow rate ± s.d (mL min−1)

tCBF fraction (%)

PI ± s.d (–)

tCBF in

659.1

100

–

657 ± 94

100

–

LICA

249.5 ± 2.7

38

1.21 ± 0.05

236 ± 41

36

0.96 ± 0.15

RICA

241.0 ± 2.0

37

0.89 ± 0.03

236 ± 41

36

0.96 ± 0.15

LVA

87.8 ± 1.1

13

1.08 ± 0.07

90 ± 17

14

1.11 ± 0.18

RVA

80.9 ± 1.4

12

1.07 ± 0.06

90 ± 17

14

1.11 ± 0.18

 

Correia de Verdier and Wikström4

Flow rate (range) (mL min−1)

tCBF fraction (%)

PI (range) (–)

tCBF out

660.1

100

–

698

100

–

LACA

94.2 ± 0.8

14

0.45 ± 0.02

93 (28–195)

13

0.60 (0.18–1.57)

RACA

93.8 ± 0.7

14

0.50 ± 0.03

113 (36–190)

16

0.67 (0.23–1.19)

LMCA

170.1 ± 1.3

26

0.53 ± 0.02

169 (111–255)

24

0.71 (0.38–1.54)

RMCA

171.8 ± 0.8

26

0.46 ± 0.01

174 (127–264)

25

0.69 (0.44–1.64)

LPCA

68.7 ± 0.7

10

0.60 ± 0.02

77 (31–133)

11

0.58 (0.26–1.00)

RPCA

62.4 ± 0.5

9

0.52 ± 0.01

72 (22–115)

10

0.56 (0.16–0.86)

  1. Cycle-averaged experimental results for all cycles are listed on the left side: mean flow rates, flow distribution as tCBF fraction and flow pulsatility indices at the corresponding arteries. Next to our data, in-vivo data from MRI-based measurements of flow rate and pulsatility indices4,5,6. The values in the column for tCBF fraction of the literature values were calculated based on both the reported mean flow rates and tCBF and were not comprised in the reported literature. For the study of Correia de Verdier and Wikström, tCBF out value was calculated as the sum of the reported flow rates and was not comprised in the literature.
Back to article page