Chapter 5 compared to the RG fitted response (dashed A). In panel A the dashed line shows the RG fit while the fit of the NVC-part in the RGCA model is shown by the dotted line in panel B clearly different from panel A fit, resulting in different NVC parameters. It is clear that part of the variation in the NVC response can be attributed to ABP variation. It is also clear that in this case the difference in NVC fits with and without blood pressure correction results in different NVC parame- ters, e.g. attenutation will be lower after blood pressure correction in this subject due to the less damped response fit. Only NVC NVC+CA 5 * p < 0.001 4 * * Fit error % 3 * 2 1 0 Mean Systolic Figure 4 Fit error for mean (left) and systolic (right) NVC responses without (dark) and with (light) blood pressure correction. Overall results of fit errors are summarized in figure 4 showing significantly decreased fit error for BP-corrected responses (0.8 % ± 0.6) compared to non- corrected (2.4 % ± 2.8 p<0.001) for mean blood pressure and flow velocities. This reduction in fit error after blood pressure correction is less pronounced for systolic values: 2.2 % ± 2.6 without and 1.5 % ± 1.2 with BP-correction (p<0.001). Comparing these fit errors between mean and systolic values did not show a difference before blood pressure correction, but after blood pressure correction the fit error is significantly lower for mean values (p<0.001). 88
proefschrift gommer inhoud met kaft.indd
To see the actual publication please follow the link above