Kim H. Parker edited section_Detailed_commentary_on_the__.tex  almost 9 years ago

Commit id: 89971c9560a66e703ce831470d39fa580d43ebb2

deletions | additions      

       

\section{Detailed commentary on the WSW paper}  Having pointed out the basic factual errors of the WSW paper, we now provide a detailed commentary on the final two sections of the paper, subsection by subsection. The indented sections are direct transcription of the different sections of the WSW paper with comment numbers \textbf{[Cn]} inserted to indicated the numbered comments following. The original paper does not have numbered section headings but these seem to be necessary in the latex to HTML compiler that I am using. Apart from the numbering of the sections, the indented text should be an accurate transcription of the paper.  \begin{quote}  \subsection{Reservoir-Wave Concept} 

The RWC assumes that diastole (diastasis) is wave-free \textbf{[C1]} and that, therefore, the arterial system can be described by a reservoir (storage volume) and peripheral resistance (Frank Windkessel). This model explains the diastolic pressure decay in diastole. In systole, however, as Frank Windkessel does not describe pressure well,16,32,33,35 an excess pressure, $P_{exc}(t) = Z_c Q^m(t)$ was introduced,16,36 which is the difference between measured pressure and pressure predicted by Frank Windkessel. The basis of the RWC is described as follows: it is assumed that measured aortic pressure is the instantaneous sum of a constant ($P_{inf}$, pressure reached after long asystole), a Windkessel or reservoir pressure ($P_{res}$), and a wave-related pressure (excess pressure, $P_{exc}$).37 \textbf{[C2]} In essence, there is a similarity between the 3-element Windkessel and the RWC, as discussed by Vermeersch et al.38 An important difference, however, is that the Windkessel is not compatible with waves. The reservoir pressure is assumed to be related to (aortic) volume25,36,39 and the excess pressure accounts for waves and reflections. \textbf{[C3]}  \end{quote}