Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Vascul Pharmacol. 2006 Nov 18;46(4):293–301. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2006.11.003

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Effects of interactions on vessel size and hemodynamics (21d). A) Reduced flow in animals treated with low flow (LF) (*, p<.0001, post-hoc) or balloon injury and low flow (B + LF) (*, p<.0001) compared to control animals or animals treated with balloon injury (B) alone (p<.0001, ANOVA; n=21). B) Reduced shear stress in animals treated with LF (*, p=.01, post-hoc) or B+LF (*, p=.03) compared to control animals or animals treated with B alone (p=.001, ANOVA). C) Reduced diameter in animals treated with LF (*, p=.04, post-hoc) or B+LF (*, p=.003) compared to control animals or animals treated with B alone (p=.02, ANOVA). The 21% decrease in diameter in the LF group is similar to previous reports.(Langille and O'Donnell 1986) D) Representative photomicrographs of low and high power magnification of vessels (control, B, LF, B+LF). Scale bar, 100 μm. E) Reduced lumen diameter in animals treated with B+LF (*, p=.02, post-hoc) compared to control animals (p=.02, ANOVA). F) Similar media area between animal groups (p=.28, ANOVA). G) Increased neointima:media ratio in animals treated with B or B+LF (p<.0001, ANOVA). The increased neointima:media ratio in B+LF, compared to the increase in B, is significant (*, p=.01, post-hoc).