Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js
Review Special Issues

No Reflow-phenomenon: from Current State of the Art to Future Perspectives

  • Received: 29 June 2015 Accepted: 24 November 2015 Published: 30 November 2015
  • Early and successful myocardial reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the optimal therapy for patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite successful epicardial reopening of the infarct related artery, myocardial perfusion may not be restored in up to 40-50% of patients. This phenomenon, referred to as no-reflow (NR), recognizes several pathogenetic components including distal atherothrombotic embolization, ischaemic injury, reperfusion damage, intramyocardial hemorrhage and individual susceptibility of coronary microcirculation. However the complexity of pathogenesis remains still unclear. Moreover, cause NR plays a crucial role in patients prognosis, accurate detection is critical and multiple novel diagnostic modalities has been recently assessed.The NR phenomenon represents a challenge in the management of STEMI patients and has recently captured a growing interest of both basic scientists and interventional cardiologists. Although relevant efforts to transfer into real world practice new therapeutic strategies, to date there is still weak evidence of clinical improvement in this setting. Several strategies of prevention and treatment of NR have been proposed in the clinical arena including pharmacological and mechanical interventions. Nevertheless, the complexity of the phenomenon makes extremely unlikely for a single therapy to be effective. Understanding the interaction between the components of this pathway, along with exploring newer and more effective agents may enable patients to be treated with the most appropriate therapy.

    Citation: Valeria Paradies, Filippo Masi, Francesco Bartolomucci, Alfredo Marchese, Armando Liso, Fabrizio Resta, Stefano Favale, Martino Pepe. No Reflow-phenomenon: from Current State of the Art to Future Perspectives[J]. AIMS Medical Science, 2015, 2(4): 374-395. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2015.4.374

    Related Papers:

    [1] James Nolen . A central limit theorem for pulled fronts in a random medium. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2011, 6(2): 167-194. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.167
    [2] Matthieu Alfaro, Thomas Giletti . Varying the direction of propagation in reaction-diffusion equations in periodic media. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2016, 11(3): 369-393. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2016001
    [3] Henri Berestycki, Guillemette Chapuisat . Traveling fronts guided by the environment for reaction-diffusion equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 79-114. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.79
    [4] François Hamel, James Nolen, Jean-Michel Roquejoffre, Lenya Ryzhik . A short proof of the logarithmic Bramson correction in Fisher-KPP equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 275-289. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.275
    [5] Tong Li . Qualitative analysis of some PDE models of traffic flow. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(3): 773-781. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.773
    [6] Wei-Ming Ni, Masaharu Taniguchi . Traveling fronts of pyramidal shapes in competition-diffusion systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 379-395. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.379
    [7] Danielle Hilhorst, Hideki Murakawa . Singular limit analysis of a reaction-diffusion system with precipitation and dissolution in a porous medium. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2014, 9(4): 669-682. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2014.9.669
    [8] Benjamin Contri . Fisher-KPP equations and applications to a model in medical sciences. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2018, 13(1): 119-153. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2018006
    [9] John R. King . Wavespeed selection in the heterogeneous Fisher equation: Slowly varying inhomogeneity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 343-378. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.343
    [10] Cory D. Hauck, Michael Herty, Giuseppe Visconti . Qualitative properties of mathematical model for data flow. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16(4): 513-533. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021015
  • Early and successful myocardial reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the optimal therapy for patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite successful epicardial reopening of the infarct related artery, myocardial perfusion may not be restored in up to 40-50% of patients. This phenomenon, referred to as no-reflow (NR), recognizes several pathogenetic components including distal atherothrombotic embolization, ischaemic injury, reperfusion damage, intramyocardial hemorrhage and individual susceptibility of coronary microcirculation. However the complexity of pathogenesis remains still unclear. Moreover, cause NR plays a crucial role in patients prognosis, accurate detection is critical and multiple novel diagnostic modalities has been recently assessed.The NR phenomenon represents a challenge in the management of STEMI patients and has recently captured a growing interest of both basic scientists and interventional cardiologists. Although relevant efforts to transfer into real world practice new therapeutic strategies, to date there is still weak evidence of clinical improvement in this setting. Several strategies of prevention and treatment of NR have been proposed in the clinical arena including pharmacological and mechanical interventions. Nevertheless, the complexity of the phenomenon makes extremely unlikely for a single therapy to be effective. Understanding the interaction between the components of this pathway, along with exploring newer and more effective agents may enable patients to be treated with the most appropriate therapy.



    The variational inequality problem was first introduced independently by Fichera [1] and Stampacchia [2] to model optimization problems arising from mechanics. The concept of multi-time has been employed in optimization theory, namely in the framework of multi-time optimal control problem. This problem is a particular case of the multidimensional variational problems. Several problems, in science and engineering, can be modelled in terms of optimization problems, which are governed by $ m $-flow type partial differential equations (multi-time evolution systems) and cost functionals expressed as path-independent integrals or multiple integrals. Apart from optimization theory, the concept of multidimensional parameters of evolution has also been applied in space theory, where the space coordinates are represented by two-dimensional time parameters $ t = (t_1, t_2), $ where $ t_1 $ and $ t_2 $ represent the intrinsic time and the observer time, respectively. For more details and recent studies in this direction, interested readers are referred to the studies in [3,4,5] and the references therein.

    The study of variational inequality problems in finite dimensional spaces was initiated independently by Smith [6] and Dafermos [7]. They set up the traffic assignment problem in terms of a finite dimensional variational inequality problem (VIP). On the other hand, Lawphongpanich and Hearn [8], and Panicucci et al. [9] studied traffic assignment problems based on Wardrop user equilibrium principle via a variational inequality model.

    Lions and Stampacchia [10], and Brezis [11] independently introduced the time-dependent (evolutionary) variational inequality problem, and developed an existence and uniqueness theory of the problem. Daniele et al. [12] formulated a dynamic traffic network equilibrium problem in terms of an evolutionary variational inequality problem. Ever since then, several other economics related problems like Nash equilibrium problem, spatial price equilibrium problems, internet problems, dynamic financial equilibrium problems and environmental network and ecology problems have been studied via time-dependent variational inequality problem (see [13,14,15,16]).

    Censor et al. [17] introduced a new split inverse problem called the split variational inequality problem (SVIP). The authors proposed iterative methods for estimating the solution of the problem, they and analysed the convergence of the proposed iterative schemes. The SVIP has several areas of applications, including network problems, image reconstruction, cancer treatment planning and many more.

    Very recently, Singh et al. [18] introduced another split inverse problem, which they called evolutionary split variational inequality problem. The authors demonstrated the applicability of this new problem through the formulation of the equilibrium flow of dynamic traffic network models, which comprised two given cities. Moreover, they established the existence and uniqueness of equilibria for the proposed model.

    However, Singh in [19] noted that in an economic problem, other parameters in addition to time may also affect the values of the constraints and arguments associated with the problem. Similarly, in a traffic network problem the flow of traffic depends on several economic parameters other than the time parameter. For instance, traffic flow data are known to be strongly influenced by both space (location) and time. In addition, parameters related to road capacity, safety measures for averting road accidents and several other economic parameters could affect traffic flow. Based on this observation, Singh [19] introduced a new split inverse problem, called the multidimensional split variational inequality problem (MSVIP). This new problem includes a multidimensional parameter of evolution. As an application, the author formulated the equilibrium flow within two different traffic network models, e.g., traffic networks for two given cities.

    More recently, Alakoya and Mewomo [20] studied a new class of split inverse problems, known as split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets. This class of split inverse problems is designed such that multiple variational inequality problems are solved simultaneously. The authors proposed an iterative method for estimating the solution of this problem, and they further presented some numerical experiments to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed iterative method.

    We note that the results of Singh et al. [18] and Singh [19] are only capable of dealing with two different traffic network models simultaneously. In other words, their results are not applicable when the goal is to study multiple (more than two) traffic network models simultaneously. Moreover, we also note that in formulating the split inverse problems introduced in [18,19], the authors needed to define explicitly two inverse problems (one in each of the two spaces under consideration) such that the image of the solution of the first inverse problem under a bounded linear operator is the solution of the second inverse problem. This method of formulation made the proofs of the results in [18,19] lengthy and not easily comprehensible. To overcome these shortcomings, in this study we introduce and study a new class of split inverse problems, which we call the multidimensional split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets. This newly introduced problem also includes a multidimensional parameter of evolution. Moreover, in formulating our problem we demonstrate that the inverse problems involved in the formulation need not to be explicitly defined. Instead, by introducing an index set our problem could be formulated succinctly and the proofs of the results presented more concisely. To demonstrate its applicability in the economic world, we formulate the equilibrium flow of multidimensional traffic network models for an arbitrary number of locations, e.g., traffic network models for different cities. Moreover, we define a multidimensional split Wardrop condition with multiple output sets (MSWC-MOS), and establish its equivalence with the formulated equilibrium flow of multidimensional traffic network models. Furthermore, we establish the existence and uniqueness of equilibria for our proposed model. We propose a method for solving the introduced problem, which will be useful in evaluating the equilibrium flow of multidimensional traffic network models for different cities simultaneously. Finally, we validate our results using some numerical experiments. To further illustrate the utilization of our newly introduced problem, we apply our results to study the network model of a city with heterogeneous networks. More precisely, we consider a city, which comprises connected automated vehicles (CAVs) and legacy (human-driven) vehicles, alongside electricity network, e.g. for charging the CAVs, and we formulate the equilibrium flow of this network model in terms of our newly introduced multidimensional split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets. We note that the results in [18,19] cannot be applied to the numerical examples and application considered in our study.

    In this section, we formulate our multidimensional split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets. First, we introduce some important notations and mathematical concepts, which are needed for the problem formulation. In what follows, except otherwise stated, the abbreviation "a.e." means "almost everywhere" and $ \mathbb{R}^m_+ $ denotes the set of non-negative vectors in $ \mathbb{R}^m. $ We assume that our multidimensional traffic network model comprises a multi-parameter of evolution $ v, $ which is the multidimensional parameter of evolution, i.e., $ v = (v^\alpha)\in\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, $ where $ \alpha = 1, 2, \ldots, m. $ Geometrically, $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ is a hyper-parallelepiped in $ \mathbb{R}^m_+ $ with the opposite diagonal points $ v_0 = (v_0^1, v_0^2, \ldots, v_0^m) $ and $ v_1 = (v_1^1, v_1^2, \ldots, v_1^m), $ which by the product order on $ \mathbb{R}^m_+ $ is equivalent to the closed interval $ v_0\le v\le v_1. $ Suppose that we have cities denoted by $ C_i, i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $ The traffic network of each city $ C_i $ comprises the set of nodes $ N_i, $ representing railway stations, airports, crossings, etc., the set of directed links $ L_i $ between the nodes, the set of origin-destination pairs $ W_i $ and the set of routes $ V_i. $ Moreover, it is assumed that each route $ r_i\in V_i $ connects exactly one origin-destination pair. We denote by $ V_i(w_i) $ the set of all $ r_i\in V_i, $ which connects a given $ w_i\in W_i. $ Let $ x_i(v)\in \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|} $ be the flow trajectory, and for each $ r_i\in V_i, $ let $ x_{r_i}(v) $ represent the flow trajectory of the route $ r_i $ over the multidimensional parameter $ v. $ We take our functional setting for the flow trajectories to be the reflexive Banach space $ L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \; p_i > 1, $ with the dual space $ L^{q_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), $ where $ \frac{1}{p_i}+\frac{1}{q_i} = 1, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $ We assume that every feasible flow satisfies the following multidimensional capacity constraints for each $ i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $

    $ λi(v)xi(v)μi(v),a.e. onΩv0,v1, $

    and the multidimensional traffic conservation law/demand requirements

    $ Φixi(v)=ρi(v),a.e. onΩv0,v1, $

    where $ \lambda_i(v), \mu_i(v)\in L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}) $ are given bounds such that $ \lambda_i(v)\le\mu_i(v) $ and $ \rho_i(v)\in L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|W_i|}) $ is the given demand such that $ \rho_i(v)\ge 0, $ and $ \Phi_i = (\phi_{r_i, w_i}) $ is the pair-route incidence matrix, whose entries are equal to 1 if route $ r_i $ links the pair $ w_i $ and $ 0 $ otherwise. It is also assumed that

    $ Φiλi(v)ρi(v)Φiμi(v),a.e. onΩv0,v1. $

    This assumption implies the non-emptiness of the set of feasible flows

    $ Ki={xi(v)Lpi(Ωv0,v1,R|Vi|):λi(v)xi(v)μi(v)andΦixi(v)=ρi(v),a.e. onΩv0,v1,i=0,1,,M}. $

    The canonical bilinear form on $ L^{q_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|})\times L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}) $ is defined as

    $ fi(v),xi(v)Ci=Ωv0,v1fi(v),xi(v)dv,xi(v)Lpi(Ωv0,v1,R|Vi|) $

    and

    $ f_i(v)\in L^{q_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \ \ i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $

    where $ \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle $ denotes the Euclidean inner product and $ dv = dv^1dv^2\ldots dv^m $ denotes the volume element of $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}. $

    Remark 1. It is clear that for each $ i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ the feasible set $ K_i $ is closed, convex and bounded. From this, it follows that each $ K_i $ is weakly compact.

    Moreover, for each $ x_i(v)\in K_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ the cost trajectory is denoted by the mapping $ A_i:K_i\to L^{q_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), $ and we let $ T_i:L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_0|})\to L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $ be bounded linear operators, where $ T_0 = I^{L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_0|})} $ is the identity operator on $ L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_0|}). $

    Now, we formulate our multidimensional split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets (MSVIP-MOS) as follows:

    find $ x_0(v) \in K_0 $ such that

    $ Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),y0(v)x0(v)dv0,y0(v)K0, $ (2.1)

    and such that

    $ xi(v)=Tix0(v)KisolvesΩv0,v1Ai(xi(v)),yi(v)xi(v)dv0,yi(v)Ki,i=1,2,,M. $ (2.2)

    Alternatively, the problem can be formulated in a more compact form as follows:

    find $ \; x_0(v) \in K_0\; $ such that

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v)),yi(v)Tix0(v)dv0,yi(v)Ki,Tix0(v)Ki,   i=0,1,,M. $ (2.3)

    We denote the solution set of the MSVIP-MOS by

    $ Γ={x0(v)C0such thatTix0(v)Ci,i=1,2,,M}=C0Mi=1T1i(Ci), $

    where $ C_0^*, C_i^*, \; \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ are the solution sets of VIPs (2.1) and (2.2), respectively.

    We have the following specials cases of our formulated MSVIP-MOS:

    $ 1. $ if the multidimensional parameter of evolution $ v = (t^\alpha), \alpha = 1, 2, \ldots, m, $ then the MSVIP-MOS reduces to a multi-time split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets.

    $ 2. $ if $ M = 1, $ then our formulated MSVIP-MOS reduces to the multidimensional split variational inequality problem introduced by Singh [19].

    $ 3. $ if the multidimensional parameter of evolution $ v = (v^\alpha)\in \Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \; \alpha = 1, \ldots, m, $ is a single or linear dimensional parameter of evolution, that is, $ m = 1, $ then $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ is simply the closed real interval $ [v_0, v_1] $ in $ \mathbb{R}_+ $ (set of non-negative real numbers). Moreover, for convenience we set $ v_0 = 0 $ and $ v_1 = T, $ where $ T $ denotes an arbitrary time. Thus, $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} = [0, T] $ (a fixed time interval). In this case, the MSVIP-MOS reduces to an evolutionary split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets. In addition, if $ M = 1, $ then the MSVIP-MOS reduces to the evolutionary split variational inequality problem studied by Singh et al. [18].

    $ 4. $ if all the functions are independent of the multidimensional parameter of evolution $ v, $ then the MSVIP-MOS reduces to the split variational inequality problem with multiple output sets studied by Alakoya and Mewomo [20]. In addition, if $ M = 1, $ then the MSVIP-MOS reduces to the split variational inequality problem introduced by Censor et al. [17].

    In line with the definition of an equilibrium flow for a dynamic traffic network problem given by Danielle et al. [12], we put forward the following definition for a multidimensional traffic network model with multiple networks, in terms of the introduced MSVIP-MOS.

    Definition 2.1. $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ is an equilibrium flow if and only if $ x_0(v)\in \Gamma. $

    The equilibrium flow of a traffic network has been investigated by several authors in terms of the Wardrop condition. Danielle et al. [12] modelled the traffic network equilibrium problem as a classical variational inequality problem, thereby establishing an equivalent relationship between the Wardrop condition and the classical variational inequality problem. On the other hand, Raciti [21] examined the vector form of the Wardrop equilibrium condition. Motivated by these results, here we consider the following MSWC-MOS.

    Definition 2.2. For an arbitrary $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ and a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}, $ the MSWC-MOS is defined as follows:

    $ Au00(x0(v))<As00(x0(v))xu00(v)=μu00(v)orxs00(v)=λs00(v),w0W0,u0,s0V0(w0)and such thatxi(v)=Tix0(v)Ki,i=1,2,,M,satisfiesAuii(xi(v))<Asii(xi(v))xuii(v)=μuii(v)orxsii(v)=λsii(v),wiWi,ui,siVi(wi). $

    Alternatively, we can recast the definition as follows:

    Definition 2.3. For an arbitrary $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ and a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}, $ the MSWC-MOS can be defined as

    $ Auii(xi(v))<Asii(xi(v))xuii(v)=μuii(v)orxsii(v)=λsii(v),wiWi,ui,siVi(wi), $ (2.4)

    where $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $

    In this section, we present an equivalent form of the equilibria of our multidimensional traffic network model with multiple networks via the MSWC-MOS. We note that because of the form of the MSWC-MOS, it is more responsive to the user. Hence, we can conclude that it is a user-oriented equilibrium.

    Now, we state and prove the following theorem, which is the main result of this section.

    Theorem 3.1. Let $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ be an arbitrary flow. Then $ x_0(v) $ is an equilibrium flow if and only if it satisfies the conditions of the MSWC-MOS.

    Proof. First, we suppose that $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ satisfies the conditions of the MSWC-MOS. For a given origin-destination pair $ w_i\in W_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ we define the following sets:

    $ Ri={uiVi(wi):xuii(v)<μuii},i=0,1,,M,Si={siVi(wi):xsii(v)>λsii},i=0,1,,M. $

    By the MSWC-MOS, it follows that

    $ Auii(Tix0(v))Asii(Tix0(v)),uiRi,siSi,i=0,1,,M,a.e. onΩv0,v1. $ (3.1)

    It follows from Eq (3.1) that there exist real numbers $ a_i\in\mathbb{R}, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $, such that

    $ supsiSiAsii(Tix0(v))aiinfuiRiAuii(Tix0(v)),a.e. onΩv0,v1. $

    Suppose that $ y_i(v)\in K_i, \; i = 0, 1\ldots, M, $ are arbitrary flows. Then, for a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ we have

    $ riVi(wi),Arii(Tix0(v))<airiRi,i=0,1,,M. $

    Note that if $ r_i\notin R_i, $ then $ (T_ix_0(v))^{r_i} = \mu^{r_i}(v) $ and $ \big(y_i^{r_i}(v)-(T_ix_0(v))^{r_i}\big)\le 0, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $ Hence, it follows that $ \big(A_i^{r_i}(T_ix_0(v))-a_i\big) \big(y_i^{r_i}(v)-(T_ix_0(v))^{r_i}\big)\ge 0, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}. $ In a similar manner, for all $ r_i\in V_i(w_i) $ such that $ A_i^{r_i}(T_ix_0(v)) > a_i $ a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}, $ we also have that $ \big(A_i^{r_i}(T_ix_0(v))-a_i\big) \big(y_i^{r_i}(v)-(T_ix_0(v))^{r_i}\big)\ge 0, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}. $ Consequently, for each $ i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ we get

    $ Ai(Tix0(v)),yi(v)Tix0(v)=wiWiriVi(wi)Arii(Tix0(v))(yrii(v)(Tix0(v))ri)=wiWiriVi(wi)(Arii(Tix0(v))ai)(yrii(v)(Tix0(v))ri)+aiwiWiriVi(wi)(yrii(v)(Tix0(v))ri)0,a.e. onΩv0,v1. $ (3.2)

    Observe that in Eq (3.2), the value of the term $ \sum\limits_{w_i\in W_i}\sum\limits_{r_i\in V_i(w_i)}\big(y_i^{r_i}(v)-(T_ix_0(v))^{r_i}\big), \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ is zero by the traffic conservation law/demand requirements, i.e., $ \sum\limits_{r\in V(w)}x^r(v) = \rho_w(v) $ for all $ x(v)\in K $ and $ w\in W $ a.e. on $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}. $ Since each $ y_i(v)\in K_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $ is arbitrary, it follows from Eq (3.2) that

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v)),yi(v)Tix0(v)0,yi(v)Ki,i=0,1,,M. $

    Consequently, $ x_0(v) $ is an equilibrium flow.

    Next, we prove the converse statement by contradiction, that is, we suppose that $ x_0(v) $ is an equilibrium flow, but it does not satisfy the conditions of the MSWC-MOS. Then, it follows that there exists origin-destination pairs $ w_0\in W_0, w_i\in W_i $ and routes

    $ u_0, s_0\in V_0(w_0), u_i, s_i\in V_i(w_i), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    together with a set $ \Psi\subset\Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ having a positive measure such that we have the following cases:

    $ 1. $

    $ A_0^{u_0}(x_0(v)) < A_0^{s_0}(x_0(v)), \; \; x_0^{u_0}(v) < \mu_0^{u_0}(v), x_0^{s_0}(v) > \lambda_0^{s_0}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi, $

    $\text{and such that}$

    $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    $\text{satisfies}$

    $ A_i^{u_i}(x_i(v)) < A_i^{s_i}(x_i(v)), \; \; x_i^{u_i}(v) < \mu_i^{u_i}(v), x_i^{s_i}(v) > \lambda_i^{s_i}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi. $

    $ 2. $

    $ A_0^{u_0}(x_0(v)) < A_0^{s_0}(x_0(v)), \; \; x_0^{u_0}(v) < \mu_0^{u_0}(v), x_0^{s_0}(v) > \lambda_0^{s_0}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi, $

    $\text{and such that}$

    $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    $\text{satisfies}$

    $ A_i^{u_i}(x_i(v)) < A_i^{s_i}(x_i(v))\implies x_i^{u_i}(v) = \mu_i^{u_i}(v)\; \; \text{or}\; \; x_i^{s_i}(v) = \lambda_i^{s_i}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi. $

    $ 3. $

    $ A_0^{u_0}(x_0(v)) < A_0^{s_0}(x_0(v))\implies x_0^{u_0}(v) = \mu_0^{u_0}(v)\; \; \text{or}\; \; x_0^{s_0}(v) = \lambda_0^{s_0}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi, $

    $\text{and such that}$

    $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    $\text{satisfies}$

    $ A_i^{u_i}(x_i(v)) < A_i^{s_i}(x_i(v)), \; \; x_i^{u_i}(v) < \mu_i^{u_i}(v), x_i^{s_i}(v) > \lambda_i^{s_i}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi. $

    $ 4. $

    $ A_0^{u_0}(x_0(v)) < A_0^{s_0}(x_0(v))\implies x_0^{u_0}(v) = \mu_0^{u_0}(v)\; \; \text{or}\; \; x_0^{s_0}(v) = \lambda_0^{s_0}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi, $

    $\text{and such that}$

    $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\notin K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    $\text{satisfies}$

    $ A_i^{u_i}(x_i(v)) < A_i^{s_i}(x_i(v))\implies x_i^{u_i}(v) = \mu_i^{u_i}(v)\; \; \text{or}\; \; x_i^{s_i}(v) = \lambda_i^{s_i}(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \Psi. $

    $ 5. $ Case 1. with $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\notin K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    $ 6. $ Case 2. with $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\notin K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    $ 7. $ Case 3. with $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\notin K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Starting with the Case 1., let

    $ \delta_0(v) = \min\{\mu_0^{u_0}(v)-x_0^{u_0}(v), x_0^{s_0}(v)-\lambda_0^{s_0}(v)\} \; \; \text{and} \; \; \delta_i(v) = \min\{\mu_i^{u_i}(v)-x_i^{u_i}(v), x_i^{s_i}(v)-\lambda_i^{s_i}(v)\}, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $

    where $ v\in\Psi. $ Then, $ \delta_0(v) > 0 $ and $ \delta_i(v) > 0, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ a.e. on $ \Psi. $ Next, we construct a flow trajectory $ y_0(v)\in L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_0|}) $ as follows:

    $ y_0^{u_0}(v) = x_0^{u_0}(v)+\delta_0(v), y_0^{s_0}(v) = x_0^{s_0}(v)-\delta_0(v), y_0^{r_0}(v) = x_0^{r_0}(v), $
    $ \text{for}\; \; r_0\ne u_0, s_0, \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \; \Psi, \text{and}\; \; y_0(v) = x_0(v)\; \; \text{outside of}\; \; \Psi. $

    In the same manner, we can define a flow trajectory $ y_i(v)\in L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ as

    $ y_i^{u_i}(v) = x_i^{u_i}(v)+\delta_i(v), y_i^{s_i}(v) = x_i^{s_i}(v)-\delta_i(v), y_i^{r_i}(v) = x_i^{r_i}(v), $
    $ \text{for}\; \; r_i\ne u_i, s_i, \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \; \Psi, \text{and}\; \; y_i(v) = x_i(v)\; \; \text{outside of}\; \; \Psi. $

    Hence, it is obvious that $ y_0(v)\in K_0 $ such that $ y_0(v) = x_0(v) $ outside of $ \Psi $ and $ y_i(v)\in K_i $ such that $ y_i(v) = x_i(v), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ outside of $ \Psi. $ Moreover, we have

    $ Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),y0(v)x0(v)dv=ΨA0(x0(v)),y0(v)x0(v)dv=Ψδ0(v)(Au00(x0(v))As00(x0(v)))dv<0. $

    By a similar argument, $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ satisfies

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(xi(v)),yi(v)xi(v)dv<0,i=1,2,,M. $

    It follows that $ x_0(v) $ is not an equilibrium flow. Using a similar argument, we can easily show that $ x_0(v) $ is not an equilibrium flow for Case 2 and Case 3. Furthermore, by the fact that $ x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i, i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ in Cases 4, 5, 6 and 7, it is clear that $ x_0(v) $ is not an equilibrium flow. Consequently, we have a contradiction, and this completes the proof of the theorem.

    Here, we establish the existence and uniqueness of equilibria of our multidimensional traffic network model with multiple networks, which is formulated as a MSVIP-MOS. To prove the existence and uniqueness theorem, we will employ the concept of graph theory of operators. First, we present the following definitions and lemma, which will be needed in establishing our results in this section (see [18,19,22]).

    Definition 4.1. The graph of operator $ T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ is defined by

    $ Gr T_i ={(x0(v),Tix0(v))K0×Ki:x0(v)K0}. $

    We assume that $ K_i\cap T_iK_0\ne\emptyset $ for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ where $ T_iK_0 = \{y_i(v)\in L^{p_i}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}): \exists\; x_0(v)\in K_0\; \; \text{such that}\; \; y_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\}. $ It can easily be shown that $\text{Gr}~~ T_i $ is a convex set. Since $ T_i $ is a bounded linear operator for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ it follows that $ T_i $ is also continuous. Thus, by the closed graph theorem we have that Gr $ T_i $ is closed w.r.t. the product topology. Consequently, Gr $ T_i $ is a nonempty, closed and convex subset of $ K_0\times K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ By Remark 1, we have that $ K_0\times K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ is a weakly compact set. Thus, Gr $ T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ is a weakly compact set.

    Definition 4.2. The cost operator $ A $ is said to be demi-continuous at the point $ x(v)\in K_0 $ if it is strongly-weakly sequentially continuous at this point, that is, if the sequence $ \{A(x_n(v))\} $ weakly converges to $ A(x(v)) $ for each sequence $ \{x_n(v)\}\subset K_0 $ such that $ x_n(v)\to x(v), $ where the symbol "$ \to $" denotes strong convergence.

    Definition 4.3. The cost operator $ A $ is said to be strictly monotone if

    $ A(x)A(y),xy>0,x,yK0andxy. $ (4.1)

    Definition 4.4. The convex hull of a finite subset $ \{(x^1(v), Tx^1(v)), (x^2(v), Tx^2(v)), \ldots, (x^n(v), Tx^n(v))\} $ of Gr $ T $ is defined by

    $ co{(x1(v),Tx1(v)),(x2(v),Tx2(v)),,(xn(v),Txn(v))}={nj=1δj(xj(v),Txj(v)):nj=1δj=1,for someδj[0,1]}. $

    Remark 2. Observe that

    $ co{(x1(v),Tx1(v)),(x2(v),Tx2(v)),,(xn(v),Txn(v))}(co{x1(v),x2(v),,xn(v)},co{Tx1(v),Tx2(v),,Txn(v)}). $

    Definition 4.5. ([19]) A set-valued mapping $ Q:\text{Gr}\; T\to 2^{K_0\times K_1} $ is said to be a KKM* mapping if, for any finite subset $ (x^1(v), Tx^1(v)), (x^2(v), Tx^2(v)), \ldots, (x^n(v), Tx^n(v)) $ of $\text{Gr} ~~ T, $

    *Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma

    $ co{(x1(v),Tx1(v)),(x2(v),Tx2(v)),,(xn(v),Txn(v))}nj=1Q(xj(v),Txj(v)). $

    Lemma 4.6. ([19] KKM-Fan theorem) Let $ Q:\mathit{\text{Gr}}\; T\to 2^{K_0\times K_1} $ be a KKM mapping with closed set values. If $ Q(x(v), Tx(v)) $ is compact for at least one $ (x(v), Tx(v))\in \mathit{\text{Gr}}\; T, $ then

    $ (x(v),Tx(v))GrTQ(x(v),Tx(v)). $

    We are now in a position to state and prove the existence theorem.

    Theorem 4.7. Suppose that for $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ the cost operators $ A_0, A_i $ are demi-continuous, and that there exist $ B_0\times B_i\subseteq\mathit{\text{Gr}}\; T_i $ nonempty and compact, and $ D_0\times D_i\subseteq\mathit{\text{Gr}}\; T_i $ compact such that for all $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in \mathit{\text{Gr}}\; T_i\backslash B_0\times B_i $ there exists $ (y_0(v), T_iy_0(v))\in D_0\times D_i $ with $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_0(x_0(v)), y_0(v)-x_0(v) \rangle dv < 0 $ and $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_ix_0(v)), T_iy_0(v)-T_ix_0(v) \rangle dv < 0. $ Then, the MSVIP-MOS has a solution.

    Proof. First, we define the following set-valued mappings:

    ● for all $ x_0^*(v)\in K_0 $, we define the mapping $ P_0:K_0\to 2^{K_0} $ by

    $ P0(x0(v))={x0(v)K0:Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),x0(v)x0(v)dv<0}, $

    ● for all $ y_i^*(v)\in K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ we define $ P_i:K_i\to 2^{K_i} $ by

    $ Pi(yi(v))={yi(v)Ki:Ωv0,v1Ai(yi(v)),yi(v)yi(v)dv<0}, $

    ● for all $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in \text{Gr}\; T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ we define the mappings $ Q_i:\text{Gr}\; T_i\to 2^{K_0\times K_i} $ by

    $ Qi(x0(v),Tix0(v))={(x0(v),Tix0(v))GrTi:Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),x0(v)x0(v)dv0 $

    and

    $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_ix_0^*(v)), T_ix_0(v)-T_ix_0^*(v) \rangle dv\ge 0\big\}. $

    Clearly, $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Therefore, $ Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)) $ is nonempty for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Next, we prove that for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, \; Q_i $ is a KKM mapping. We proceed by contradiction, i.e., by assuming that $ Q_i $ is not a KKM mapping for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Then for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ there exists a finite subset $ \{(x^1(v), T_ix^1(v)), (x^2(v), T_ix^2(v)), \ldots, (x^n(v), T_ix^n(v))\} $ of $ \text{Gr}\; T_i $ such that

    $ co{(x1(v),Tix1(v)),(x2(v),Tix2(v)),,(xn(v),Tixn(v))}nj=1Qi(xj(v),Tixj(v)),i=1,2,,M. $ (4.2)

    By the definition of a convex hull, there exists the following, for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    $ (\hat{y}_0(v), T_i\hat{y}_0(v))\in\text{co}\{(x^1(v), T_ix^1(v)), (x^2(v), T_ix^2(v)), \ldots, (x^n(v), T_ix^n(v))\} $

    such that

    $ (ˆy0(v),Tiˆy0(v))=nj=1βji(xj(v),Tixj(v)),i=1,2,,M, $

    where $ \beta_i^j\in [0, 1] $ and $ \sum_{j = 1}^n\beta_i^j = 1 $ for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ The expression (4.2) implies that

    $ (ˆy0(v),Tiˆy0(v))nj=1Qi(xj(v),Tixj(v)),i=1,2,,M. $

    Consequently, for any $ j = \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}, $ we have the following cases:

    $ 1. $ $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_0(\hat{y}_0(v)), x^j(v)-\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0 $ and $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), T_ix^j(v)-T_i\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0, $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    $ 2. $ $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_0(\hat{y}_0(v)), x^j(v)-\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv\ge 0 $ and $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), T_ix^j(v)-T_i\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0, $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    $ 3. $ $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_0(\hat{y}_0(v)), x^j(v)-\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0 $ and $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), T_ix^j(v)-T_i\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv\ge0, $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Case 1 implies that

    $ \{x^1(v), x^2(v), \ldots, x^n(v)\}\subset P_0(\hat{y}_0(v)) \; \; \text{and} \; \; \{T_ix^1(v), T_ix^2(v), \ldots, T_ix^n(v)\}\subset P_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Moreover, it is clear that $ P_0(x_0^*) $ and $ P_i(T_ix_0^*) $ are convex, for each $ x_0^*\in K_0 $ and $ T_ix_0^*\in K_i, $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Consequently, we have

    $ \text{co}\{x^1(v), x^2(v), \ldots, x^n(v)\}\subset P_0(\hat{y}_0(v)) $

    and

    $ \text{co}\{T_ix^1(v), T_ix^2(v), \ldots, T_ix^n(v)\}\subset P_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), \; \; \text{for each} \; \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    By the fact that

    $ (\hat{y}_0(v), T_i\hat{y}_0(v))\in\text{co}\{(x^1(v), T_ix^1(v)), (x^2(v), T_ix^2(v)), \ldots, (x^n(v), T_ix^n(v))\}, i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $

    and by Remark 2, we have

    $ (\hat{y}_0(v), T_i\hat{y}_0(v))\in\big(\text{co}\{x^1(v), x^2(v), \ldots, x^n(v)\}, \text{co}\{T_ix^1(v), T_ix^2(v), \ldots, T_ix^n(v)\}\big), $

    which implies that $ \hat{y}_0(v)\in P_0(\hat{y}_0(v)) $ and $ T_i\hat{y}_0(v)\in P_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Thus, we have

    $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_0(\hat{y}_0(v)), \hat{y}_0(v)-\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0 \; \; \text{and}\; \; \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_i\hat{y}_0(v)), T_ix^j(v)-T_i\hat{y}_0(v) \rangle dv < 0, \; \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    which are contradictions.

    By a similar argument, we can easily show that the other cases also lead to contradictions. Hence, for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, \; \; Q_i $ is a KKM mapping.

    Next, we claim that for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, \; \; Q_i $ is a closed set-valued mapping for each $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in \text{Gr}\; T_i $ w.r.t. the weak topology of $ K_0\times K_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Let $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in \text{Gr}\; T_i $ be arbitrary and suppose that $ \{(x_0^n(v), T_ix_0^n(v))\}_{n = 0}^\infty $ is a sequence in $ Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)), $ which converges strongly to $ (y_0(v), T_iy_0(v)), $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Since for each $ n\in\mathbb{N}, \; \; (x_0^n(v), T_ix_0^n(v))\in Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)), $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ we have the following for each $ n\in\mathbb{N} $

    $Ωv0,v1A0(xn0(v)),x0(v)xn0(v)dv0andΩv0,v1Ai(Tixn0(v)),Tix0(v)Tixn0(v)dv0,i=1,2,,M.$ (4.3)

    Since $ A_0, \; A_i\;, i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ are demi-continuous and $ T_0, \; T_i\;, i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ are continuous, by taking the limit as $ n\to\infty $ in Eq (4.3), we obtain

    $ Ωv0,v1A0(y0(v)),x0(v)y0(v)dv0 $

    and

    $ \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_iy_0(v)), T_ix_0(v)-T_iy_0(v) \rangle dv\ge0, \; \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    which implies that

    $ (y_0(v), T_iy_0(v))\in Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)) $

    for each $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $ Thus, $ Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)) $ is closed (w.r.t. the strong topology) for each

    $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in \text{Gr}\; T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    By the hypothesis in Theorem 4.7, it follows that $ Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $ is compact (w.r.t. the strong topology) for each

    $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in D_0\times D_i\subseteq\text{Gr}\; T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Consequently, by the KKM-Fan theorem, we have

    $ (x0(v),Tix0(v))GrTiQi(x0(v),Tix0(v)),i=1,2,,M. $

    This implies that there exists

    $ (x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v))\in\text{Gr}\; T_i, i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    such that

    $ (x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v))\in Q_i(x_0(v), T_ix_0(v)) $

    for all

    $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in\text{Gr}\; T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Now, we consider the subsets $ F_0\subset K_0, \; F_i\subset K_i, $ $ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $ such that

    $ (x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v))\in F_0\times F_i\subseteq \text{Gr}\; T_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Then, we can write that there exists

    $ (x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v))\in F_0\times F_i $

    such that

    $ (x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v))\in Q_i(x_0^*(v), T_ix_0^*(v)) $

    for all

    $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in F_0\times F_i, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Consequently, we have that for all $ (x_0(v), T_ix_0(v))\in F_0\times F_i, $

    $Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),x0(v)x0(v)dv0andΩv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v)),Tix0(v)Tix0(v)dv0,i=1,2,,M. $ (4.4)

    Let

    $ y_i^*(v) = T_ix_0^*(v), y_i(v) = T_ix_0(v), i = 1, 2, \ldots, M, $

    and observe that $ x_0^*(v) $ and

    $ y_i^*(v) = T_ix_0^*(v), i = 1, 2, \ldots, M $

    are fixed in Eq (4.4). Thus, Eq (4.4) can be rewritten as $ x_0^*(v) \in F_0 $, such that

    $ Ωv0,v1A0(x0(v)),x0(v)x0(v)dv0,x0(v)F0, $

    and such that

    $ y_i^*(v) = T_ix_0^*(v)\in F_i\; \; \text{solves}\; \; \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}} \langle A_i(y_i^*(v)), y_i(v)-y_i^*(v) \rangle dv\ge 0, \quad \forall y_i(v)\in F_i, \\ i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Hence, it follows that the MSVIP-MOS has a solution $ x_0^*(v)\in F_0\subset K_0. $

    Next, we present the result on the uniqueness of the solution of the MSVIP-MOS in the following corollary.

    Corollary 1. If the cost operators $ A_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $ are strictly monotone on $ K_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ then the MSVIP-MOS has a unique solution.

    Proof. Suppose to the contrary that the MSVIP-MOS does not have a unique solution. Let $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ be a solution of the MSVIP-MOS. Then, we have

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v)),xi(v)Tix0(v)dv0,xi(v)Ki,Tix0(v)Ki,i=0,1,,M. $ (4.5)

    Let $ \hat{x}_0(v)\in K_0 $ be another solution of the MSVIP-MOS such that $ x_0(v)\ne \hat{x}_0(v). $ Then, it follows that

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tiˆx0(v)),ˆxi(v)Tiˆx0(v)dv0,ˆxi(v)Ki,Tiˆx0(v)Ki,i=0,1,,M. $ (4.6)

    We can rewrite Eq (4.5) as

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v)),Tiˆx0(v)Tix0(v)dv0,i=0,1,,M. $ (4.7)

    By the strict monotonicity of the $ A_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ together with the fact that $ x_0(v)\ne \hat{x}_0(v), $ we get

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tix0(v))Ai(Tiˆx0(v)),Tix0(v)Tiˆx0(v)dv>0,i=0,1,,M. $ (4.8)

    By adding Eqs (4.7) and (4.8), we obtain

    $ Ωv0,v1Ai(Tiˆx0(v)),Tix0(v)Tiˆx0(v)dv<0,i=0,1,,M, $

    which contradicts Eq (4.6). Therefore, it follows that $ \hat{x}_0(v) $ is not a solution of the MSVIP-MOS. Consequently, the MSVIP-MOS has a unique solution.

    In this section, motivated by the work of Cojocaru et al. [23], we study our multidimensional traffic model with multiple networks by employing the theory of a projected dynamical system (PDS). Dupuis and Nagurney [24] were the first to introduce and study the PDS. Furthermore, they established the connections of PDS with the classical variational inequality problem. For more details about the various areas of applications of the PDS, we refer interested readers to [23,25].

    Inspired by the results from the aforementioned works, here, we introduce and formulate a multidimensional split projected dynamical system with multiple output sets (MSPDS-MOS) for $ p_i = 2, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $ as follows:

    $ Findx0()K0such thatdx0(,τ)dτ=ΠK0(x0(,τ),A0(x0(,τ))),x0(,0)=x00()K0and such thatxi()=Tix0()Kisatisfiesdxi(,τ)dτ=ΠKi(xi(,τ),Ai(xi(,τ))),xi(,0)=x0i()Ki,i=1,2,,M, $

    where $ A_i:K_i\to L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, $ are Lipschitz continuous vector fields and the operators $ \Pi_{K_i}:K_i\times L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}), \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M $ are defined by

    $ ΠKi(xi(),yi()):=limδ0+projKi(xi()+δyi())xi()δ,xi()Ki,yi()L2(Ωv0,v1,R|Vi|), $

    where $ \text{proj}_{K_i}(\cdot) $ are the nearest point projection of a given vector onto the sets given by $ K_i. $

    Alternatively, the MSPDS-MOS can be formulated as follows:

    Find $ x_0(\cdot)\in K_0 $ such that

    $ \frac{dT_ix_0(\cdot, \tau)}{d\tau} = \Pi_{K_i}\big(T_ix_0(\cdot, \tau), -A_i(T_ix_0(\cdot, \tau))\big), \; \; x_i(\cdot, 0) = x_i^0(\cdot)\in K_i, i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $

    For clarity, here we have represented the elements of the space $ L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V_i|}) $ at fixed $ v\in\Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ by $ x(\cdot). $ Observe that for all $ v\in\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, $ a solution of the MSVIP-MOS represents a static state of the underlying system and the static states define one or more equilibrium curves when $ v $ varies over $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}. $ On the contrary, the time $ \tau $ defines the dynamics of the system over the interval $ [0, \infty) $ until it attains one of the equilibria on the curves. Clearly, the solutions to the MSPDS-MOS lie in the class of absolutely continuous functions with respect to $ \tau, $ mapping $ [0, \infty) $ to $ K_i, \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. $ Before we describe the procedure to solve the MSVIP-MOS, we present the following useful definitions motivated by [26,27].

    Definition 5.1. A point $ \hat{x}_0(\cdot)\in K_0 $ is called a critical point for the MSPDS-MOS if

    $ \Pi_{K_0}\big(\hat{x}_0(\cdot), -A_0(\hat{x}_0(\cdot))\big) = 0 $

    and the point $ \hat{y}_i(\cdot) = T_i\hat{x}_0(\cdot)\in K_i $ satisfies

    $ \Pi_{K_i}\big(\hat{y}_i(\cdot), -A_i(\hat{y}_i(\cdot))\big) = 0, \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, M. $

    Alternatively, the critical point for the MSPDS-MOS can be defined as follows: $ \hat{x}_0(\cdot)\in K_0 $ is called a critical point for the MSPDS-MOS if

    $ ΠKi(Tiˆx0(),Ai(Tiˆx0()))=0,Tiˆx0()Ki,i=0,1,,M. $

    Definition 5.2. The polar set $ K^o $ associated with $ K $ is defined by

    $ Ko:={x()L2(Ωv0,v1,R|V|):x(),y()0,y()K}. $

    Definition 5.3. The tangent cone to the set $ K $ at $ x(\cdot)\in K $ is defined by

    $ ˆTK(x())=cl(λ>0Kx()λ), $

    where cl denotes the closure operation.

    Definition 5.4. The normal cone of $ K $ at $ x(\cdot)\in K $ is defined by

    $ NK(x()):={y()L2(Ωv0,v1,R|V|):y(),z()x()0,z()K}. $

    Alternatively, we can express this as $ \hat{T}_K(x(\cdot)) = [N_K(x(\cdot))]^o. $

    Definition 5.5. The projection of $ x(\cdot)\in L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V|}) $ onto $ K $ is defined by

    $ projK(x()):=argminy()K $

    Remark 3. The projection map $ \text{proj}_K(\cdot) $ satisfies the following property for each $ x(\cdot)\in L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V|}): $

    $ \begin{equation*} \langle\langle x(\cdot)-\text{proj}_K(x(\cdot)), y(\cdot)-\text{proj}_K(x(\cdot)) \rangle\rangle\le 0, \; \; \forall\; y(\cdot)\in K. \end{equation*} $

    We have the following results, which follow from Proposition 2.1 and 2.2 in [26].

    Proposition 1. For all $ x(\cdot)\in K $ and $ y(\cdot)\in L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V|}), \; \Pi_K(x(\cdot), y(\cdot)) $ exists and $ \Pi_K(x(\cdot), y(\cdot)) = \mathit{\text{proj}}_{\hat{T}_K(x(\cdot))}(y(\cdot)). $

    Proposition 2. For all $ x(\cdot)\in K, $ there exists $ n(\cdot)\in N_K(x(\cdot)) $ such that $ \Pi_K(x(\cdot), y(\cdot)) = y(\cdot)-n(\cdot), \; \; \forall y(\cdot)\in L^{2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{|V|}). $

    Now, we prove the following theorem, which establishes the relationship between solutions of MSVIP-MOS and the critical points of the MSPDS-MOS.

    Theorem 5.6. The point $ x_0^*(\cdot)\in K_0 $ is a solution of the MSVIP-MOS if and only if it is a critical point of the MSPDS-MOS.

    Proof. First, we suppose that $ x_0^*(\cdot)\in K_0 $ is a solution to the MSVIP-MOS, that is,

    $ \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}}\langle A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), y_i(\cdot)-T_ix_0^*(\cdot) \rangle dv\ge 0, \quad \forall\; y_i(\cdot)\in K_i, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, \end{equation*} $

    which implies that

    $ \begin{equation*} \langle\langle A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), y_i(\cdot)-T_ix_0^*(\cdot) \rangle\rangle \ge 0, \quad \forall\; y_i(\cdot)\in K_i, \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. \end{equation*} $

    From the last inequality, it follows that

    $ \begin{equation*} -A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot))\in N_{K_i}(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), \quad i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. \end{equation*} $

    By Proposition 2, we have

    $ \begin{equation} \Pi_{K_i}(T_ix_0^*(\cdot), -A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot))) = 0, \end{equation} $ (5.1)

    which implies that $ x_0^*(\cdot) $ is a critical point of the MSPDS-MOS.

    Conversely, suppose that $ x_0^*(\cdot) $ is a critical point of the MSPDS-MOS. Then, Eq (5.1) holds. By Proposition 1, it follows that

    $ \begin{equation*} \text{proj}_{\hat{T}_{K_i}(T_ix_0^*(\cdot))}(-A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot))) = 0, \quad i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. \end{equation*} $

    Applying Remark 3, we obtain

    $ \begin{equation*} \langle\langle -A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), z_i(\cdot) \rangle\rangle \le 0, \quad \forall\; z_i(\cdot)\in \hat{T}_{K_i}(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), \; \; i = 0, 1, \ldots, M, \end{equation*} $

    which gives

    $ \begin{equation*} -A_i(T_ix_0^*(\cdot))\in N_{K_i}(T_ix_0^*(\cdot)), \quad i = 0, 1, \ldots, M. \end{equation*} $

    From this, it follows that $ x_0^*(\cdot) $ is a solution of the MSVIP-MOS.

    At this point, we present the method for finding the solution of the MSVIP-MOS. In our numerical experiments, we consider the case in which $ v = (t^\alpha), \alpha = 1, 2, \ldots, m, $ that is, there are $ m $-dimensional time parameters. We have established the existence and uniqueness of equilibria for the MSVIP-MOS in Section 4. Moreover, Theorem 5.6 guarantees that any point on a curve of equilibria in the set $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ is a critical point of the MSPDS-MOS and vice versa. Taking into consideration all of these facts, now we discretize the set $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} $ as follows: $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1}:(v_0^1, v_0^2, \ldots, v_0^m) = (t_0^1, t_0^2, \ldots, t_0^m) < (t_1^1, t_1^2, \ldots, t_1^m) < \ldots < (t_j^1, t_j^2, \ldots, t_j^m) < \ldots < (t_n^1, t_n^2, \ldots, t_n^m) = (v_1^1, v_1^2, \ldots, v_1^m). $ Consequently, for each $ t_j = (t_j^1, t_j^2, \ldots, t_j^m), \; j = 0, 1, \ldots, n, $ we obtain a sequence of the MSPDS-MOS on the distinct, finite-dimensional, closed and convex sets denoted by $ K_{t_j}. $ After evaluating all of the critical points of each MSPDS-MOS, we obtain a sequence of critical points and from this, we generate the curves of equilibria by interpolation.

    To demonstrate the implementation of this procedure, we consider the transportation network patterns of three cities $ C_0, C_1 $ and $ C_2 $ as shown in Figure 1 below.

    Figure 1.  The transportation network patterns of the three cities $ C_0, C_1 $ and $ C_2 $.

    We suppose that a bus company has stations at nodes $ P_0^{1} $ and $ P_0^{2} $ in City $ C_0, $ at nodes $ P_1^{1} $ and $ P_1^{4} $ in City $ C_1 $ and at nodes $ P_2^{1} $ and $ P_{2}^{12} $ in City $ C_2. $ In City $ C_0, $ the buses from stations $ P_0^{1} $ and $ P_0^{2} $ have to deserve the locations $ P_0^{3} $ and $ P_0^{5}, $ respectively. In City $ C_1, $ the buses from stations $ P_1^{1} $ and $ P_1^{4} $ have to deserve the locations $ P_1^{2} $ and $ P_1^{3}, $ respectively. While in City $ C_2, $ the buses from stations $ P_2^{1} $ and $ P_{2}^{12} $ have to deserve the locations $ P_2^{6} $ and $ P_2^{8}, $ respectively.

    Hence, the network of City $ C_0 $ comprises six nodes and eight links, and we assume that the origin-destination pairs are $ w_0^1 = (P_0^1, P_0^3) $ and $ w_0^2 = (P_0^2, P_0^5), $ which are respectively connected by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w_0^1: \begin{cases} r_0^1 = (P_0^1, P_0^2)\cup (P_0^2, P_0^3)\\ r_0^2 = (P_0^1, P_0^6)\cup (P_0^6, P_0^5)\cup (P_0^5, P_0^2)\cup (P_0^2, P_0^3), \end{cases} \end{equation*} $
    $ \begin{equation*} w_0^2: \begin{cases} r_0^3 = (P_0^2, P_0^3)\cup (P_0^3, P_0^4)\cup (P_0^4, P_0^5)\\ r_0^4 = (P_0^2, P_0^3)\cup (P_0^3, P_0^6)\cup (P_0^6, P_0^5). \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    Let $ \Omega_{v_0, v_1} = \Omega_{0, 3} = [0, 3]^2. $ The set of feasible flows, $ K_0 $, is given by

    $ \begin{align*} K_0 = &\{x(t)\in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0)\le (x_1(t), x_2(t), x_3(t), x_4(t))\le (t^1+t^2+1, t^1+t^2+2, 2t^1+2t^2+2, t^1+t^2+3)\; \; \\ &\text{and}\; \; x_1(t)+x_2(t) = t^1+t^2+2, \; \; x_3(t)+x_4(t) = 2t^1+2t^2+3, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}, \end{align*} $

    the cost function $ A_0:K_0\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4) $ is defined by

    $ A_0(x(t)) = (x_1(t), x_2(t), x_3(t), x_4(t)) $

    and the bounded linear operator

    $ T_0: L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4)\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4) $

    is defined by $ T_0x(t) = (x_1(t), x_2(t), x_3(t), x_4(t)), $ where $ x(t) = (x_1(t), x_2(t), x_3(t), x_4(t)). $

    Moreover, the network of City $ C_1 $ is made up of five nodes and seven links, and we assume that the origin-destination pairs are $ w_1^1 = (P_1^1, P_1^2) $ and $ w_1^2 = (P_1^4, P_1^3), $ which are respectively connected by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w_1^1: \begin{cases} r_1^1 = (P_1^1, P_1^2)\\ r_1^2 = (P_1^1, P_1^4)\cup (P_1^4, P_1^2), \end{cases} \end{equation*} $
    $ \begin{equation*} w_1^2: \begin{cases} r_1^3 = (P_1^4, P_1^2)\cup (P_1^2, P_1^3)\\ r_1^4 = (P_1^4, P_1^5)\cup (P_1^5, P_1^3)\\ r_1^5 = (P_1^4, P_1^2)\cup (P_1^2, P_1^5)\cup (P_1^5, P_1^3). \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    The set of feasible flows, $ K_1 $, is given by

    $ \begin{align*} K_1& = \{y(t)\in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^5): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0, 0)\le (y_1(t), y_2(t), y_3(t), y_4(t), y_5(t))\le (t^1+t^2+6, t^1+t^2+6, 2t^1+2t^2+2, \\ &t^1+t^2+4, 4t^1+4t^2+4)\; \; \text{and}\; \; y_1(t)+y_2(t) = 3t^1+3t^2+5, \\ & y_3(t)+y_4(t)+y_5(t) = 2t^1+4t^2+6, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}, \end{align*} $

    the cost function $ A_1:K_1\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^5) $ is defined as

    $ A_1(y(t)) = (y_1^2(t), y_2^2(t), y_3^2(t), y_4^2(t), y_5^2(t)) $

    and the bounded linear operator

    $ T_1: L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4)\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^5) $

    is defined by

    $ T_1y(t) = (y_1(t)+y_4(t), y_2(t)+y_3(t), y_1(t)+y_2(t), 2y_1(t), 2y_2(t)+y_4(t)-y_3(t)), $

    where

    $ y(t) = (y_1(t), y_2(t), y_3(t), y_4(t)). $

    Also, the network of City $ C_2 $ is composed of twelve nodes and thirteen links, and we assume that the origin-destination pairs are $ w_2^1 = (P_2^1, P_2^6) $ and $ w_2^2 = (P_2^{12}, P_2^8), $ which are respectively connected by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w_2^1: \begin{cases} r_2^1 = (P_2^1, P_2^2)\cup (P_2^2, P_2^3)\cup (P_2^3, P_2^4)\cup (P_2^4, P_2^5)\cup (P_2^5, P_2^6)\\ r_2^2 = (P_2^1, P_2^2)\cup (P_2^2, P_2^8)\cup (P_2^8, P_2^7)\cup (P_2^7, P_2^6), \end{cases} \end{equation*} $
    $ \begin{equation*} w_2^2: \begin{cases} r_2^3 = (P_2^{12}, P_2^{11})\cup (P_2^{11}, P_2^{10})\cup (P_2^{10}, P_2^9)\cup (P_2^{9}, P_2^8)\\ r_2^4 = (P_2^{12}, P_2^1)\cup (P_2^1, P_2^2)\cup (P_2^2, P_2^8). \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    The set of feasible flows, $ K_2 $, is given by

    $ \begin{align*} K_2& = \{z(t)\in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0)\le (z_1(t), z_2(t), z_3(t), z_4(t))\le (2t^1+2t^2+3, t^1+t^2+7, 3t^1+3t^2+4, 2t^1+2t^2+5)\; \; \\ &\text{and}\; \; z_1(t)+z_2(t) = 3t^1+3t^2+4, \; \; z_3(t)+z_4(t) = 2t^1+6t^2+7, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}, \end{align*} $

    the cost function $ A_2:K_2\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4) $ is defined by

    $ A_2(z(t)) = (z_1(t)+z_1^2(t), z_2(t)+z_2^2(t), z_3(t)+z_3^2(t), z_4(t)+z_4^2(t)) $

    and the bounded linear operator

    $ T_2: L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4)\to L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4) $

    is defined by

    $ T_2z(t) = (2z_3(t)-z_1(t), 2z_4(t)-z_2(t), 2z_1(t)+z_4(t), 2z_2(t)+z_3(t)), $

    where

    $ z(t) = (z_1(t), z_2(t), z_3(t), z_4(t)). $

    It can easily be verified that all the hypotheses of Theorem 4.7 are satisfied and that the cost operators denoted by $ A_i, \; i = 0, 1, 2 $ are strictly monotone on the sets of feasible flows denoted by $ K_i, \; i = 0, 1, 2. $ Thus, the MSVIP-MOS has a unique solution. We select

    $ t_j\in \big\{\big[\frac{k}{6}, \frac{k}{6}\big]:k\in\{0, 1, 2, \ldots, 18\}\big\}. $

    Then, we have a sequence of MSPDS-MOS defined on the feasible sets

    $ \begin{align*} K_{0, t_j} = &\{x(t_j)\in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0)\le (x_1(t_j), x_2(t_j), x_3(t_j), x_4(t_j))\le (t_j^1+t_j^2+1, t_j^1+t_j^2+2, 2t_j^1+2t_j^2+2, \; \; \\ &t_j^1+t_j^2+3)\; \; \text{and}\; \; x_1(t_j)+x_2(t_j) = t_j^1+t_j^2+2, \; \; x_3(t_j)+x_4(t_j) = 2t_j^1+2t_j^2+3, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}, \end{align*} $
    $ \begin{align*} K_{1, t_j}& = \{y(t_j) \in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^5): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0, 0)\le (y_1(t_j), y_2(t_j), y_3(t_j), y_4(t_j), y_5(t_j))\le (t_j^1+t_j^2+6, t_j^1+t_j^2+6, \\ &2t_j^1+2t_j^2+2, t_j^1+t_j^2+4, 4t_j^1+4t_j^2+4)\; \; \text{and}\; \; y_1(t_j)+y_2(t_j) = 3t_j^1+3t^2+5, \; \; y_3(t_j)+y_4(t_j)+y_5(t_j)\\ & = 2t_j^1+4t_j^2+6, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}, \end{align*} $
    $ \begin{align*} K_{2, t_j}& = \{z(t_j) \in L^2(\Omega_{0, 3}, \mathbb{R}^4): \\ &(0, 0, 0, 0)\le (z_1(t_j), z_2(t_j), z_3(t_j), z_4(t_j))\le (2t_j^1+2t_j^2+3, t_j^1+t_j^2+7, 3t_j^1+3t_j^2+4, 2t_j^1+2t_j^2+5)\\ &\text{and}\; \; z_1(t_j)+z_2(t_j) = 3t_j^1+3t_j^2+4, \; \; z_3(t_j)+z_4(t_j) = 2t_j^1+6t_j^2+7, \; \; \text{a.e.}\; \; \text{in}\; \; \Omega_{0, 3}\}. \end{align*} $

    For evaluating the unique equilibrium, we have the following system at $ t_j: $

    $ \begin{align*} \text{find}&\; \; x^*(t_j)\in K_{0, t_j}\; \; \; \text{such that}\; \; \; -A_0(x^*(t_j))\in N_{K_{0, t_j}}(x^*(t_j))\\ \text{and}&\; \; T_ix^*(t_j)\in K_{i, t_j}\; \; \; \text{solves}\; \; \; -A_i(T_ix^*(t_j))\in N_{K_{i, t_j}}(T_ix^*(t_j)), \quad i = 1, 2. \end{align*} $

    After some computations, we obtain the equilibrium points which are presented in Tables 13. Then, we interpolate the points in Tables 13 to get the curves of equilibria displayed in Figures 24.

    Table 1.  Numerical results associated with the traffic network pattern of City $ C_0 $.
    $ t_i = \{t_i^1, t_i^2 \} $ $ x_1^*(t_i) $ $ x_2^*(t_i) $ $ x_3^*(t_i) $ $ x_4^*(t_i) $
    $ \{0, 0\} $ 1.0000 1.0000 1.5000 1.5000
    $ \{\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \} $ 1.1667 1.1667 1.8333 1.8333
    $ \{\frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3} \} $ 1.3333 1.3333 2.1667 2.1667
    $ \{\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} \} $ 1.5000 1.5000 2.5000 2.5000
    $ \{\frac{2}{3}, \frac{2}{3} \} $ 1.6667 1.6667 2.8333 2.8333
    $ \{\frac{5}{6}, \frac{5}{6} \} $ 1.8333 1.8333 3.1667 3.1667
    $ \{1, 1\} $ 2.0000 2.0000 3.5000 3.5000
    $ \{\frac{7}{6}, \frac{7}{6} \} $ 2.1667 2.1667 3.8333 3.8333
    $ \{\frac{4}{3}, \frac{4}{3} \} $ 2.3333 2.3333 4.1667 4.1667
    $ \{\frac{3}{2}, \frac{3}{2} \} $ 2.5000 2.5000 4.5000 4.5000
    $ \{\frac{5}{3}, \frac{5}{3} \} $ 2.6667 2.6667 4.8333 4.8333
    $ \{\frac{11}{6}, \frac{11}{6}\} $ 2.8333 2.8333 5.1667 5.1667
    $ \{2, 2\} $ 3.0000 3.0000 5.5000 5.5000
    $ \{\frac{13}{6}, \frac{13}{6} \} $ 3.1667 3.1667 5.8333 5.8333
    $ \{\frac{7}{3}, \frac{7}{3} \} $ 3.3333 3.3333 6.1667 6.1667
    $ \{\frac{5}{2}, \frac{5}{2} \} $ 3.5000 3.5000 6.5000 6.5000
    $ \{\frac{8}{3}, \frac{8}{3} \} $ 3.6667 3.6667 6.8333 6.8333
    $ \{\frac{17}{6}, \frac{17}{6} \} $ 3.8333 3.8333 7.1667 7.1667
    $ \{3, 3 \} $ 4.0000 4.0000 7.5000 7.5000

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Numerical results associated with the traffic network pattern of City $ C_1 $.
    $ t_i = \{t_i^1, t_i^2 \} $ $ y_1^*(t_i) $ $ y_2^*(t_i) $ $ y_3^*(t_i) $ $ y_4^*(t_i) $ $ y_5^*(t_i) $
    $ \{0, 0\} $ 2.5000 2.5000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
    $ \{\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \} $ 3.0000 3.0000 2.3333 2.3333 2.3333
    $ \{\frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3} \} $ 3.5000 3.5000 2.6667 2.6667 2.6667
    $ \{\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} \} $ 4.0000 4.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
    $ \{\frac{2}{3}, \frac{2}{3} \} $ 4.5000 4.5000 3.3333 3.3333 3.3333
    $ \{\frac{5}{6}, \frac{5}{6} \} $ 5.0000 5.0000 3.6667 3.6667 3.6667
    $ \{1, 1\} $ 5.5000 5.5000 4.0000 4.0000 4.0000
    $ \{\frac{7}{6}, \frac{7}{6} \} $ 6.0000 6.0000 4.3333 4.3333 4.3333
    $ \{\frac{4}{3}, \frac{4}{3} \} $ 6.5000 6.5000 4.6667 4.6667 4.6667
    $ \{\frac{3}{2}, \frac{3}{2} \} $ 7.0000 7.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000
    $ \{\frac{5}{3}, \frac{5}{3} \} $ 7.5000 7.5000 5.3333 5.3333 5.3333
    $ \{\frac{11}{6}, \frac{11}{6}\} $ 8.0000 8.0000 5.6667 5.6667 5.6667
    $ \{2, 2\} $ 8.5000 8.5000 6.0000 6.0000 6.0000
    $ \{\frac{13}{6}, \frac{13}{6} \} $ 9.0000 9.0000 6.3333 6.3333 6.3333
    $ \{\frac{7}{3}, \frac{7}{3} \} $ 9.5000 9.5000 6.6667 6.6667 6.6667
    $ \{\frac{5}{2}, \frac{5}{2} \} $ 10.0000 10.0000 7.0000 7.0000 7.0000
    $ \{\frac{8}{3}, \frac{8}{3} \} $ 10.5000 10.5000 7.3333 7.3333 7.3333
    $ \{\frac{17}{6}, \frac{17}{6} \} $ 11.0000 11.0000 7.6667 7.6667 7.6667
    $ \{3, 3 \} $ 11.5000 11.5000 8.0000 8.0000 8.0000

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Numerical results associated with the traffic network pattern of City $ C_2 $.
    $ t_i = \{t_i^1, t_i^2 \} $ $ z_1^*(t_i) $ $ z_2^*(t_i) $ $ z_3^*(t_i) $ $ z_4^*(t_i) $
    $ \{0, 0\} $ 2.0000 2.0000 3.5000 3.5000
    $ \{\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \} $ 2.5000 2.5000 4.1667 4.1667
    $ \{\frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{3} \} $ 3.0000 3.0000 4.8333 4.8333
    $ \{\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} \} $ 3.5000 3.5000 5.5000 5.5000
    $ \{\frac{2}{3}, \frac{2}{3} \} $ 4.0000 4.0000 6.1667 6.1667
    $ \{\frac{5}{6}, \frac{5}{6} \} $ 4.5000 4.5000 6.8333 6.8333
    $ \{1, 1\} $ 5.0000 5.0000 7.5000 7.5000
    $ \{\frac{7}{6}, \frac{7}{6} \} $ 5.5000 5.5000 8.1667 8.1667
    $ \{\frac{4}{3}, \frac{4}{3} \} $ 6.0000 6.0000 8.8333 8.8333
    $ \{\frac{3}{2}, \frac{3}{2} \} $ 6.5000 6.5000 9.5000 9.5000
    $ \{\frac{5}{3}, \frac{5}{3} \} $ 7.0000 7.0000 10.1667 10.1667
    $ \{\frac{11}{6}, \frac{11}{6}\} $ 7.5000 7.5000 10.8333 10.8333
    $ \{2, 2\} $ 8.0000 8.0000 11.5000 11.5000
    $ \{\frac{13}{6}, \frac{13}{6} \} $ 8.5000 8.5000 12.1667 12.1667
    $ \{\frac{7}{3}, \frac{7}{3} \} $ 9.0000 9.0000 12.8333 12.8333
    $ \{\frac{5}{2}, \frac{5}{2} \} $ 9.5000 9.5000 13.5000 13.5000
    $ \{\frac{8}{3}, \frac{8}{3} \} $ 10.0000 10.0000 14.1667 14.1667
    $ \{\frac{17}{6}, \frac{17}{6} \} $ 10.5000 10.5000 14.8333 14.8333
    $ \{3, 3 \} $ 11.0000 11.0000 15.5000 15.5000

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 2.  The traffic network pattern of City $ C_0 $.
    Figure 3.  The traffic network pattern of City $ C_1 $.
    Figure 4.  The traffic network pattern of City $ C_2 $.

    Table 1 displays the equilibrium points at each instant for City $ C_0 $ while the traffic network pattern of City $ C_0 $ is presented in Figure 2. We observe from Table 1 that at the beginning of the equilibrium flow in City $ C_0, $ the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin-destination pair $ w_0^2 $ is about $ 1.5 $ times the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin destination pair $ w_0^1, $ and this factor increases gradually over the equilibrium flow time to about $ 1.9. $

    Table 2 shows the equilibrium points at each instant for City $ C_1 $ and the traffic network pattern of the city is presented in Figure 3. We note from Table 2 that at the beginning of the equilibrium flow in City $ C_1, $ the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin-destination pair $ w_1^1 $ is about $ 1.3 $ times the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin destination pair $ w_1^2, $ and this factor increases gradually over the equilibrium flow time to about $ 1.4. $

    Table 3 presents the equilibrium points at each instant for City $ C_2 $ while the traffic network pattern of the city is presented in Figure 4. It is observed from Table 3 that at the beginning of the equilibrium flow in City $ C_2, $ the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin-destination pair $ w_2^2 $ is about $ 1.8 $ times the flow on each of the routes connecting the origin destination pair $ w_2^1. $ Contrary to the observation in cities $ C_0 $ and $ C_1, $ this factor decreases gradually over the equilibrium flow time to about $ 1.4. $ We observe from the results that when the system is in equilibrium every route in each of the three cities is in use. Moreover, routes connecting the same origin-destination pair in each city have an equal amount of flow at each instant $ t $ within the equilibrium flow time.

    In this section, we illustrate how our results can be applied to study models with heterogeneous networks. For that purpose, we consider a City $ C $, which comprises a traffic network of human-driven vehicles (HDVs), traffic network of connected automated vehicles (CAVs) and an electricity network as shown in Figure 5 below.

    Figure 5.  The network model of the three heterogeneous networks in City C.

    We denote the traffic network of human-driven vehicles by NHDV, while we denote the traffic network of connected automated vehicles by NCAV and the electricity network by EN. Here, it is assumed that the EN is analogous to the traffic network. Suppose that within the network coverage of CAVs, we have commuters such that some of them need to be transported from location $ P^1 $ to location $ P^3 $ and others from location $ P^1 $ to location $ P^4 $, using CAVs. On the other hand, we assume that within the network coverage of HDVs, we have commuters who need to be transported by HDVs from locations $ Q^1 $ and $ Q^{12} $ to locations $ Q^6 $ and $ Q^8, $ respectively. Also, we suppose that within the EN, electricity needs to be transmitted from point $ R^1 $ to point $ R^4. $

    Therefore, the NCAV consists of four nodes and six links, and we assume that the origin destination pairs are $ w_p^1 = (P^1, P^3) $ and $ w_p^2 = (P^1, P^4), $ which are connected respectively by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w^1_p: \begin{cases} r^1_p = (P^1, P^2)\cup (P^2, P^3)\\ r^2_p = (P^1, P^4)\cup (P^4, P^3)\\ r^3_p = (P^1, P^3), \end{cases} \end{equation*} $
    $ \begin{equation*} w^2_p: \begin{cases} r^4_p = (P^1, P^4)\\ r^5_p = (P^1, P^2)\cup (P^2, P^4).\\ \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    The set of feasible flows $ K_0 $ is given by

    $ \begin{equation*} K_0 = \big\{x_0(v)\in L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{5}) : \lambda_0(v)\le x_0(v) \le\mu_0(v)\; \; \text{and}\; \; \Phi_0x_0(v) = \rho_0(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \; \Omega_{v_0, v_1}\big\}, \end{equation*} $

    the cost function is given by $ A_0:K_0\to L^{q_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^5) $ and the bounded linear operator $ T_0: L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^5)\to L^{p_0}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^5). $

    Similarly, the NHDV comprises twelve nodes and thirteen links, and we assume that the origin-destination pairs are $ w_q^1 = (Q^1, Q^6) $ and $ w_q^2 = (Q^{12}, Q^8), $ which are respectively connected by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w_q^1: \begin{cases} r_q^1 = (Q^1, Q^2)\cup (Q^2, Q^3)\cup (Q^3, Q^4)\cup (Q^4, Q^5)\cup (Q^5, Q^6)\\ r_q^2 = (Q^1, Q^2)\cup (Q^2, Q^8)\cup (Q^8, Q^7)\cup (Q^7, Q^6), \end{cases} \end{equation*} $
    $ \begin{equation*} w_q^2: \begin{cases} r_q^3 = (Q^{12}, Q^{11})\cup (Q^{11}, Q^{10})\cup (Q^{10}, Q^9)\cup (Q^{9}, Q^8)\\ r_q^4 = (Q^{12}, Q^1)\cup (Q^1, Q^2)\cup (Q^2, Q^8). \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    The set of feasible flows $ K_1 $ is given by

    $ \begin{equation*} K_1 = \big\{x_1(v)\in L^{p_1}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{4}) : \lambda_1(v)\le x_1(v) \le\mu_1(v)\; \; \text{and}\; \; \Phi_1x_1(v) = \rho_1(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \; \Omega_{v_0, v_1}\big\}, \end{equation*} $

    the cost function is given by $ A_1:K_1\to L^{q_1}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^4) $ and the bounded linear operator $ T_1: L^{p_1}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^4)\to L^{p_1}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^4). $

    On the other hand, the EN consists of six nodes and seven links, and we assume that the origin-destination pair is $ w_r^1 = (R^1, R^4), $ which is connected by the following routes:

    $ \begin{equation*} w_r^1: \begin{cases} r_r^1 = (R^1, R^2)\cup (R^2, R^3)\cup (R^3, R^4)\\ r_r^2 = (R^1, R^6)\cup (R^6, R^5)\cup (R^5, R^4)\\ r_r^3 = (R^1, R^4). \end{cases} \end{equation*} $

    The set of feasible flows $ K_2 $ is given by

    $ \begin{equation*} K_2 = \big\{x_2(v)\in L^{p_2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^{3}) : \lambda_2(v)\le x_2(v) \le\mu_2(v)\; \; \text{and}\; \; \Phi_2x_2(v) = \rho_2(v), \; \; \text{a.e. on}\; \; \Omega_{v_0, v_1}\big\}, \end{equation*} $

    the cost function is given by $ A_2: K_2\to L^{q_2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^3) $ and the bounded linear operator

    $ T_2: L^{p_2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^3)\to L^{p_2}(\Omega_{v_0, v_1}, \mathbb{R}^3). $

    Then, it follows that $ x_0(v)\in K_0 $ is an equilibrium flow if and only if

    $ \begin{align} &\int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}} \langle A_0(x_0(v)), y_0(v)-x_0(v) \rangle dv\ge 0, \quad \forall y_0(v)\in K_0, \\ \text{and such that}&\; \; x_i(v) = T_ix_0(v)\in K_i\; \; \text{solves} \\ &\int_{\Omega_{v_0, v_1}} \langle A_i(x_i(v)), y_i(v)-x_i(v) \rangle dv\ge 0, \quad \forall y_i(v)\in K_i, \; \; i = 1, 2. \end{align} $ (5.2)

    Therefore, by employing the model (5.2), we can determine the equilibrium flows of the NCAV, NHDV and EN simultaneously.

    We introduced and studied a new class of split inverse problem called the MSVIP-MOS. Our proposed model is finite-dimensional and essentially an assignment problem. It comprises a multidimensional parameter of evolution. To demonstrate the applicability of our proposed model in the economic world, we formulated the equilibrium flow of multidimensional traffic network models for an arbitrary number of locations. Moreover, we proposed a method for solving the introduced problem and validated our results with some numerical experiments. Finally, to further demonstrate the usefulness of our newly introduced model, we applied our results to study the network model of a city with heterogeneous networks that comprises CAVs and legacy (human-driven) vehicles, alongside the EN, e.g. for charging the CAVs, and we formulated the equilibrium flow of this network model in terms of the newly introduced MSVIP-MOS. However, we note that the problem investigated in this study belongs to the class of linear (split) inverse problems, and as such our results are not applicable to nonlinear traffic flow models. In our future study, we will be interested in extending our results to this class of models.

    The authors declare that they have not used artificial intelligence tools in the creation of this article.

    This work was supported by the HEA (the Irish Higher Education Authority) North-South Research Programme 2021. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and recommendations, which have helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Vikram Pakrashi would like to also acknowledge Science Foundation Ireland NexSys 21/SPP/3756.

    The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, et al. (2011) ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 32: 2999-3054. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236
    [2] Rezkalla SH, Kloner RA (2008) Coronary no-reflow phenomenon: from the experimental laboratory to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 72: 950-957. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21715
    [3] Eeckhout E, Kern MJ (2001) The coronary no-reflow phenomenon: a review of mechanisms and therapies. Eur Heart J 22: 729-739 doi: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2172
    [4] Wu KC, Zerhouni EA, Judd RM, et al. (1998) Prognostic significance of microvascular obstruction by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 97: 765-772. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.97.8.765
    [5] Brosh D, Assali AR, Mager A, et al. (2007) Effect of no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction on six-month mortality. Am J Cardiol 99: 442-445. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.08.054
    [6] Bolognese L, Carrabba N, Parodi G, et al. (2004) Impact of microvascular dysfunction on left ventricular remodeling and long-term clinical outcome after primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 109: 1121-1126. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000118496.44135.A7
    [7] Ndrepepa G, Tiroch K, Fusaro M, et al. (2010) A 5-year prognostic value of no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 55: 2383-2389. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.054
    [8] Kloner RA, Ganote CE, Jennings RB (1974) The "no-reflow" phenomenon after temporary coronary occlusion in the dog. J Clin Invest 54: 1496-1508. doi: 10.1172/JCI107898
    [9] Galiuto L, Lombardo A, Maseri A, et al. (2003) Temporal evolution and functional outcome of no reflow: sustained and spontaneously reversible patterns following successful coronary recanalisation. Heart 89: 731-737. doi: 10.1136/heart.89.7.731
    [10] Limbruno U, De CM, Pistolesi S, et al. (2005) Distal embolization during primary angioplasty: histopathologic features and predictability. Am Heart J 150: 102-108 doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.01.016
    [11] Bahrmann P, Werner GS, Heusch G, et al. (2007) Detection of coronary microembolization by Doppler ultrasound in patients with stable angina pectoris undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation 115: 600-608 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.660779
    [12] Kleinbongard P, Bose D, Baars T, et al. (2011) Vasoconstrictor potential of coronary aspirate from patients undergoing stenting of saphenous vein aortocoronary bypass grafts and its pharmacological attenuation. Circ Res 108: 344-352 doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.110.235713
    [13] Tranum-Jensen J, Janse MJ, Fiolet WT, et al. (1981) Tissue osmolality, cell swelling, and reperfusion in acute regional myocardial ischemia in the isolated porcine. Circ Res 49: 364-381. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.49.2.364
    [14] Yellon DM, Hausenloy DJ (2007) Myocardial reperfusion injury. N Engl J Med 357: 1121-1135. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra071667
    [15] Paradies G, Petrosillo G, Pistolese M, et al. (2004) Decrease in mitochondrial complex I activity in ischemic/reperfused rat heart: involvement of reactive oxygen species and cardiolipin. Circ Res 94: 53-59. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000109416.56608.64
    [16] Petrosillo G, Di Venosa N, Moro N, et al. (2011) In vivo hyperoxic preconditioning protects against rat-heart ischemia/reperfusion injury by inhibiting mitochondrial permeability transition pore opening and cytochrome c release. Free Radic Biol Med 50: 477-483. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2010.11.030
    [17] Lefer AM, Tsao PS, Aoki N, et al. (1990) Mediation of cardioprotection by transforming growth factor-beta. Science 249: 61-64. doi: 10.1126/science.2164258
    [18] Furuichi K, Wada T, Iwata Y, et al. (2006) Interleukin-1-dependent sequential chemokine expression and inflammatory cell infiltration in ischemia-reperfusion injury. Crit Care Med 34: 2447-2455. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000233878.36340.10
    [19] Basso C, Rizzo S, Thiene G (2010) The metamorphosis of myocardial infarction following coronary recanalization. Cardiovasc Pathol 19: 22-28. doi: 10.1016/j.carpath.2009.06.010
    [20] Collet JP, Montalescot G (2005) The acute reperfusion management of STEMI in patients with impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Vasc Dis Res 2: 136-143. doi: 10.3132/dvdr.2005.021
    [21] Golino P, Maroko PR, Carew TE (1987) The effect of acute hypercholesterolemia on myocardial infarct size and the no-reflow phenomenon during coronary occlusion-reperfusion. Circulation 75: 292-298. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.75.1.292
    [22] Ishihara M (2012) Acute hyperglycemia in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cric J 76: 563-571.
    [23] Gibson CM, Ryan KA, Murphy SA, et al. (1998) Impaired coronary blood flow in nonculprit arteries in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. The TIMI Study Group. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 34: 974-982.
    [24] Araszkiewicz A, Lesiak M, Grajek S, et al. (2007) Effect of microvascular reperfusion on prognosis and left ventricular function in anterior wall myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty. Int J Cardiol 114: 183-187. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.01.057
    [25] Lepper W, Sieswerda GT, Vanoverschelde JL, et al. (2001) Predictive value of markers of myocardial reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction for follow-up left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol 88: 1358-1363. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02113-0
    [26] Vicente J, Mewton N, Croisille P, et al. (2009) Comparison of the angiographic myocardial blush grade with delayed-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance for the assessment of microvascular obstruction in acute myocardial infarctions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 74: 1000-1007. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22157
    [27] Uetani T, Amano T, Kumagai S, et al. (2009) Intracoronary electrocardiogram recording with a bare-wire system: perioperative ST-segment elevation in the intracoronary electrocardiogram is associated with myocardial injury after elective coronary stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2: 127-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.07.010
    [28] Mather AN, Fairbairn TA, Artis NJ, et al. (2011) Timing of cardiovascular MR imaging after acute myocardial infarction: effect on estimates of infarct characteristics and prediction of late ventricular remodeling. Radiology 261: 116-126. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110228
    [29] Lund GK, Stork A, Saeed M, et al. (2004) Acute myocardial infarction: evaluation with first-pass enhancement and delayed enhancement MR imaging compared with 201Tl SPECT imaging. Radiology 232: 49-57. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2321031127
    [30] Nijveldt R, Beek AM, Hirsch A, et al. (2008) Functional recovery after acute myocardial infarction: comparison between angiography, electrocardiography, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures of microvascular injury. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.04.006
    [31] Greaves K, Dixon SR, Fejka M, et al. (2003) Myocardial contrast echocardiography is superior to other known modalities for assessing myocardial reperfusion after acute myocardial infarction. Heart 89: 139-144. doi: 10.1136/heart.89.2.139
    [32] Tanaka A, Kawarabayashi T, Nishibori Y, et al. (2002) No-reflow phenomenon and lesion morphology in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 105: 2148-2152. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000015697.59592.07
    [33] Watanabe T, Nanto S, Uematsu M, et al. (2003) Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon after successful percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: intravascular ultrasound findings. Circ J 67: 667-671. doi: 10.1253/circj.67.667
    [34] Wu X, Mintz GS, Xu K, et al. (2011) The relationship between attenuated plaque identified by intravascular ultrasound and no-reflow after stenting in acute myocardial infarction: the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4: 495-502.
    [35] Tanaka A, Imanishi T, Kitabata H, et al. (2009) Lipid-rich plaque and myocardial perfusion after successful stenting in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: an optical coherence tomography study. Eur Heart J 30: 1348-1355. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp122
    [36] Svilaas T, Vlaar PJ, van der Horst IC, et al. (2008) Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 358: 557-567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706416
    [37] Frobert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. (2013) TASTE Trial. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 369: 1587-1597.
    [38] Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. (2015) TOTAL Investigators. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med 372: 1389-1398.
    [39] Puymirat E, Aissaoui N, Cottin Y, et al. (2014) Effect of coronary thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on one-year survival (from the FAST-MI 2010 registry). Am J Cardiol 114: 1651-1657. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.039
    [40] Kilic S, Ottervanger JP, Dambrink JH, et al. (2014) Myocardial Infarction Study Group. The effect of thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcome in daily clinical practice. Thromb Haemost 111: 165-171.
    [41] Jones DA, Rathod KS, Gallagher S, et al. (2015) Manual thrombus aspiration is not associated with reduced mortality in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational study of 10,929 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction from the London Heart Attack Group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8: 575-584. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.11.021
    [42] Siudak Z, Mielecki W, Dziewierz A, et al. (2015) No long-term clinical benefit from manual aspiration thrombectomy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Data from NRDES registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 85: E16-E22. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25572
    [43] De Rosa S, Cirillo P, De Luca G, et al. (2007) Rheolytic thrombectomy during percutaneous coronary intervention improves long-term outcome in high-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Interv Cardiol 20: 292-298. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2007.00271.x
    [44] Mehta SK, Frutkin AD, Milford-Beland S, et al. (2007) Utilization of distal embolic protection in saphenous vein graft interventions (an analysis of 19,546 patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol 100: 1114-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.04.058
    [45] Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. (2002) Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation 105: 1285-1290.
    [46] Heusch G, Kleinbongard P, Bose D, et al. (2009) Coronary microembolization: from bedside to bench and back to bedside. Circulation 120: 1822-1836. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.888784
    [47] Ali A, Cox D, Dib N, et al. (2006) Rheolytic thrombectomy with percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct size reduction in acute myocardial infarction: 30-day results from a multicenter randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 48: 244-252. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.044
    [48] Stone GW, Abizaid A, Silber S, et al. (2012) Prospective, randomized,multicenter evaluation of a polyethylene terephthalate micronet mesh-covered stent (MGuard) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the master trial. J Am Coll Cardiol S0735-1097: 04506-8.
    [49] Dudek D, Brener SJ, Rakowski T, et al. (2014) Efficacy of an embolic protection stent as a function of delay to reperfusion in st-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the MASTER Trial). Am J Cardiol 114: 1485-1489. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.007
    [50] Thiele H, Schindler K, Friedenberger J, et al. (2008) Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus abciximab application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the randomized Leipzig immediate percutaneous coronary intervention abciximab IV versus IC in ST-elevation myocardial infarction trial. Circulation 118: 49-57. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.747642
    [51] Bartorelli AL, Trabattoni D, Galli S, et al. (1999) Successful dissolution of occlusive coronary thrombus with local administration of abciximab during PTCA. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 48: 211-213. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-726X(199910)48:2<211::AID-CCD20>3.0.CO;2-V
    [52] Kakkar AK, Moustapha A, Hanley HG, et al. (2004) Comparison of intracoronary vs. intravenous administration of abciximab in coronary stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 61: 31-34.
    [53] Stone GW, Maehara A, Witzenbichler B, et al. (2012) Intracoronary abciximab and aspiration thrombectomy in patients with large anterior myocardial infarction: the INFUSE-AMI randomized trial. JAMA 307: 1817-1826. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.421
    [54] Thiele H, Wohrle J, Hambrecht R, et al. (2012) Intracoronary vs. intravenous bolus abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet 379: 923-931.
    [55] De Rosa S, Caiazzo G, Torella D, et al. (2012) Intracoronary abciximab reduces death and major adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Int J Cardiol 7-5273(12)01631-2.
    [56] Van't Hof AW, Ten Berg J, Heestermans T, et al. (2008) Ongoing Tirofiban in myocardial infarction evaluation (On-TIME) 2 study group. Prehospital initiation of tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty (On-TIME 2): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 372: 537-546.
    [57] Authors/Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35: 2541-2619. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
    [58] Morikawa S, Takabe W, Mataki C, et al. (2002) The effect of statins on mRNA levels of genes related to inflammation, coagulation, and vascular constriction in HUVEC. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells. J Atheroscler Thromb 9: 178-183. doi: 10.5551/jat.9.178
    [59] Oduncu V, Tanalp AC, Erkol A, et al. (2011) Impact of chronic pre-treatment of statins on the level of systemic inflammation and myocardial perfusion in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 107: 179-185. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.008
    [60] Iwakura K, Ito H, Kawano S, et al. (2006) Chronic pretreatment of statins is associated with the reduction of the no-reflow phenomenon in the patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 27: 534-539. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi715
    [61] Lyu T, Zhao Y, Zhang T, et al. (2013) Effect of statin pretreatment on myocardial perfusion in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol 36: E17-24. doi: 10.1002/clc.22169
    [62] Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Andreotti F, et al. (2014) Meta-analysis of time-related benefits of statin therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 113: 1753-1764. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.02.034
    [63] Ross AM, Gibbons RJ, Stone GW, et al. (2005) A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMISTAD-II). J Am Coll Cardiol 45: 1775-1780. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.02.061
    [64] Niccoli G, Rigattieri S, De Vita MR, et al. (2013) Open-label, randomized, placebo-controlled evaluation of intracoronary adenosine or nitroprusside after thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the prevention of microvascular obstruction in acute myocardial infarction: the REOPEN-AMI study (Intracoronary Nitroprusside Versus Adenosine in Acute Myocardial Infarction). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6: 580-589. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.02.009
    [65] Nazir SA, Khan JN, Mahmoud IZ, et al. (2014) The REFLO-STEMI trial comparing intracoronary adenosine, sodium nitroprusside and standard therapy for the attenuation of infarct size and microvascular obstruction during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials 15: 371. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-371
    [66] Ishii H, Ichimiya S, Kanashiro M, et al. (2005) Impact of a single intravenous administration of nicorandil before reperfusion in patients with ST segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 112: 1284-1288. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.530329
    [67] Vijayalakshmi K, Whittaker VJ, Kunadian B, et al. (2006) Prospective, randomized controlled trial to study the effect of intracoronary injection of verapamil and adenosine on coronary blood flow during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Heart 92: 1278-1284. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.075077
    [68] Michaels AD, Appleby M, Otten MH, et al. (2002) Pretreatment with intragraft verapamil prior to percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: results of the randomized, controlled vasodilator prevention on no-reflow (VAPOR) trial. J Invasive Cardiol 14: 299-302.
    [69] Su Q, Li L, Liu Y (2013) Short-term effect of verapamil on coronary no-reflow associated with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Cardiol 36: E11-16. doi: 10.1002/clc.22143
    [70] Piot C, Croisille P, Staat P, et al (2008) Effect of cyclosporine on reperfusion injury in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 359: 473-481. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa071142
    [71] Dominguez-Rodriguez A, Abreu-Gonzalez P, Garcia-Gonzalez MJ, et al. (2007) A unicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study of Melatonin as an Adjunct in patients with acute myocaRdial Infarction undergoing primary Angioplasty TheMelatonin Adjunct in the acute myocaRdial Infarction treated with Angioplasty (MARIA) trial: study design and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials 28: 532-539. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.10.007
    [72] Kloner RA, Hale SL, Dai W, et al. (2012) Reduction of ischemia/reperfusion injury with bendavia, a mitochondria-targeting cytoprotective Peptide. J Am Heart Assoc 1: e001644.
    [73] Kandzari DE, Hasselblad V, Tcheng JE, et al (2004) Improved clinical outcome with abciximab therapy in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic overview of randomized clinical trials. Am Heart J 147: 457-462. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.08.011
    [74] Amit G, Cafri C, Yaroslavtsev S, et al. (2006) Intracoronary nitroprusside for the prevention of the no-reflow phenomenon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am Heart J 152: 887.e9-14.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Francis Comets, Jeremy Quastel, Alejandro F. Ramírez, Last Passage Percolation and Traveling Fronts, 2013, 152, 0022-4715, 419, 10.1007/s10955-013-0779-8
    2. Gregoire Nadin, How does the spreading speed associated with the Fisher-KPP equation depend on random stationary diffusion and reaction terms?, 2015, 20, 1553-524X, 1785, 10.3934/dcdsb.2015.20.1785
    3. Jiří Černý, Alexander Drewitz, Quenched invariance principles for the maximal particle in branching random walk in random environment and the parabolic Anderson model, 2020, 48, 0091-1798, 10.1214/19-AOP1347
    4. Grégoire Nadin, Luca Rossi, Generalized Transition Fronts for One-Dimensional Almost Periodic Fisher-KPP Equations, 2017, 223, 0003-9527, 1239, 10.1007/s00205-016-1056-1
    5. Alexander Drewitz, Lars Schmitz, Invariance Principles and Log-Distance of F-KPP Fronts in a Random Medium, 2022, 246, 0003-9527, 877, 10.1007/s00205-022-01824-x
    6. Xing Liang, Tao Zhou, Spreading speeds of KPP-type lattice systems in heterogeneous media, 2020, 22, 0219-1997, 1850083, 10.1142/S0219199718500839
    7. Henri Berestycki, Grégoire Nadin, Spreading speeds for one-dimensional monostable reaction-diffusion equations, 2012, 53, 0022-2488, 115619, 10.1063/1.4764932
    8. Andrej Zlatoš, Transition fronts in inhomogeneous Fisher–KPP reaction–diffusion equations, 2012, 98, 00217824, 89, 10.1016/j.matpur.2011.11.007
    9. Jiří Černý, Alexander Drewitz, Lars Schmitz, (Un-)bounded transition fronts for the parabolic Anderson model and the randomized F-KPP equation, 2023, 33, 1050-5164, 10.1214/22-AAP1869
    10. Haojie Hou, Yan-Xia Ren, Renming Song, Invariance principle for the maximal position process of branching Brownian motion in random environment, 2023, 28, 1083-6489, 10.1214/23-EJP956
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7040) PDF downloads(1116) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog