Table 6.

Changes in the regional work and coronary perfusion density

	Subepicardium		Midwall		Subendocardium
% Variation	ΔJ/ΔQ	ΔQ–ΔJ	ΔJ/ΔQ	ΔQ–ΔJ	ΔJ/ΔQ	ΔQ–ΔJ
Tmax
+25	+4.2/+2.1	−2.0	+8.8/+0.0	−8.8	+4.3/−10.4	−14.8
−10	−2.4/−6.4	−4.0	−4.5/−4.7	−0.2	−2.4/−1.0	+1.4
b
+10	+56.9/+25.0	−31.9	+39.4/+43.3	+3.9	+59.1/+70.8	+11.8
A
+50	−6.6/−4.3	+2.3	−5.4/−7.1	−1.7	−6.0/−12.5	−6.5
−50	+7.8/+15.0	+7.2	+6.0/+15.0	+8.9	+6.5/+19.8	+13.3
Rper
+25	+5.1/+13.6	+8.5	+4.3/+18.9	+14.6	+5.1/+22.9	+17.8
−10	−2.7/−7.1	−4.4	−2.4/−9.4	−7.1	−3.0/−10.4	−7.4
Vven0
−25	+94.9/+52.1	−42.8	+49.6/+58.3	+8.6	+91.3/+56.3	−35.2
Cart
+25	−7.2/−12.1	−5.0	−5.4/−15.7	−10.3	−7.3/−14.6	−7.3
−25	+6.9/+10.0	+3.1	+4.8/+11.8	+7.0	+7.0/+12.5	+5.5

Changes in the regional work (J) and coronary perfusion density (Q) as a % of their baseline values to perturbations in the left ventricle-systemic circulation model parameters from the central-LV region. The difference between the % change in perfusion density (ΔQ) and the % change in work done (ΔJ) is the energy imbalance that needs to be reduced by coronary flow regulation. Note that a change in V_ven0 (Eq. A21) causes the preload to change in the opposite direction. A, elastic modulus; b, sarcomere relaxation rate; C_art, aortic compliance; R_per, peripheral vascular resistance; T_max, isometric tension under maximal activation; V_ven0, resting venous volume.