AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J.
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, A.

Prediction of the Jugular Venous Waveform Using a Model of CSF Dynamics

J. Kima, N.A. Thackera, P.A. Bromileya and A. Jacksona

a From the Division of Imaging Sciences and Biomedical Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK


Figure 1
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 1. The simplified anatomic model on which the electrical equivalence model is based. Boundaries identified by thin lines are considered compliant.


Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 2. A, The electrical equivalence model derived for the anatomic model shown in Fig 1.

B, The simplified equivalent circuit after removal of redundant components.


Figure 3
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 3. Anatomic (A) and arteriographic (B) scout images showing the location of the measurement planes. Subsequent images show the location of regions of interest for the cerebral aqueduct (1), foramen magnum (2), internal carotid arteries and jugular veins (3), basilar artery (4), and superior sagittal and straight sinuses (5).


Figure 4
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 4. Measured flow rates for carotid and basilar arteries combined (CAB), superior sagittal sinus (SSS), and combined straight sinus (STS) and SSS venous outflow (Ven) averaged across 16 subjects compared with the predicted venous outflow I2.


Figure 5
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 5. A, Comparison of the predicted venous outflow (I2) and the combined STS and SSS venous outflow (Ven). The venous outflow has been scaled to have the same integral as I2. The lower curve shows the difference in the waveforms. Note the prominent systolic peak in the difference.

B, Comparison of the predicted venous outflow (I2) and the jugular venous outflow (JV). The venous outflow has been scaled to have the same integral as I2. The lower curve shows the difference in the waveforms.


Figure 6
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 6. Mean and 95% confidence intervals for flow at each of 16 heart phases for the predicted venous outflow (I2) and the combined STS and SSS venous outflow (Ven). Asterisks indicate significant differences (*, P < .05; **, P < .01).


Figure 7
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 7. Mean and 95% confidence intervals for flow at each of 16 heart phases for the predicted venous outflow (I2) and the jugular venous outflow. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*, P < .05).





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Neuroradiology. Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X