Terminology for describing the elastic behavior of arteries.

Abstract

The ability to characterize and quantify the elastic behavior of arteries has become increasingly important, because its application has broadened from basic physiology to clinical domains and the prediction of cardiovascular risk. Consequently, it is imperative that terminology to communicate across these disciplines is consistent and meaningful. In 1960, Peterson et al1 suggested coining a new definition of elastic modulus, the ratio of stress to strain, in terms of the pulse pressure, ΔP, and the directly measurable parameters ΔD and D (diameter). This has subsequently become known as Peterson’s modulus (Ep), where ![Formula][1] In 1975, one of us (R.G.G.)2 suggested calling the inverse of Ep the arterial compliance , C, where ![Formula][2] However, since that date, various authors have used the term distensibility for this quantity (eg, most recently O’Rourke et al3), and the term compliance has also become strongly linked with adherence to medical advice. The authors would therefore suggest that this difference in terminology is best resolved by using the long-established, engineering term compressibility when referring to the inverse of the elastic modulus.4,5 Thus, use of the well-defined, longer-established terms, elastic modulus and compressibility , would replace the need to use the terms compliance and distensibility, about whose mathematical definition some confusion exists in the literature. The classic physics of elasticity is often said to have started in 1600 with the discovery by Hooke that the ratio of stress to strain in isotropic materials, within … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/graphic-2.gif