Monodomain model

Monodomain model

Cardiac Propagation Simulation

Published in Theo C. Pilkington, Bruce Loftis, Joe F. Thompson, Savio L-Y. Woo, Thomas C. Palmer, Thomas F. Budinger, High-Performance Computing in Biomedical Research, 2020

Andrew E. Pollard, Nigel Hooke, Craig S. Henriquez

In our comparison of the phase-dependent behavior at different anisotropy ratios, we noted that the main differences between the bidomain results (nominal anisotropy) and the monodomain results (equal anisotropy) were confined to the region of the foot of the action potential. With the nominal anisotropy ratio, we observed a triangular shape to the isopotential lines just ahead of the depolarization wavefront (Figure 7) which was not present with equal anisotropy ratio (Figure 6). In the regions of the upstroke and plateau of the action potential, however, we noted little difference in the isopotential distributions with equal (Figure 6) and nominal (Figure 7) anisotropy ratios. Taken together, these results suggest that the monodomain model and the bidomain model do not give markedly different results in the region of the action potential where tissue activation is typically defined.

Predicting the cardiac toxicity of drugs using a novel multiscale exposure–response simulator

View Article

Journal Information

Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2018

Francisco Sahli Costabal, Jiang Yao, Ellen Kuhl

Our model represents the electrical excitation of the myocardium through the classical monodomain model parameterized in terms of the transmembrane potential . The spatio-temporal evolution of the transmembrane potential follows a reaction–diffusion equation,

Explore chapters and articles related to this topic

Cardiac Propagation Simulation

Predicting the cardiac toxicity of drugs using a novel multiscale exposure–response simulator