Pressure–velocity-based analysis of arterial wave intensity gives clinically relevant information about the performance of the heart and vessels, but its utility is limited because accurate pressure measurements can only be obtained invasively. Diameter–velocity-based wave intensity can be obtained noninvasively using ultrasound; however, due to the nonlinear relationship between blood pressure and arterial diameter, the two wave intensities might give disparate clinical indications. To test the magnitude of the disagreement, we have generated an age-stratified virtual population to investigate how the two dominant nonlinearities ‘viscoelasticity and strain-stiffening’ cause the two formulations to differ. We found strong agreement between the pressure–velocity and diameter–velocity methods, particularly for the systolic wave energy, the ratio between systolic and diastolic wave heights, and older subjects. The results are promising regarding the introduction of noninvasive wave intensities in the clinic.

基于压力-速度的动脉波强度分析提供了有关心脏和血管性能的临床相关信息，但其实用性有限，因为只能通过侵入性方式获得准确的压力测量。使用超声波可以无创地获得基于直径-速度的波强度；然而，由于血压和动脉直径之间的非线性关系，两种波强度可能会给出不同的临床指示。为了测试分歧的严重程度，我们生成了一个按年龄分层的虚拟群体，以研究两种主要的非线性“粘弹性和应变硬化”如何导致两种公式不同。我们发现压力-速度和直径-速度方法之间有很强的一致性，特别是对于收缩期波能量、收缩期和舒张期波高之间的比率以及老年受试者。关于在临床中引入无创波强度的结果是有希望的。