In order for computational fluid dynamics to provide quantitative parameters to aid in the clinical assessment of type B aortic dissection, the results must accurately mimic the hemodynamic environment within the aorta. The choice of inlet velocity profile (IVP) therefore is crucial; however, idealised profiles are often adopted, and the effect of IVP on hemodynamics in a dissected aorta is unclear. This study examined two scenarios with respect to the influence of IVP—using (a) patient-specific data in the form of a three-directional (3D), through-plane (TP) or flat IVP; and (b) non-patient-specific flow waveform. The results obtained from nine simulations using patient-specific data showed that all forms of IVP were able to reproduce global flow patterns as observed with 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging. Differences in maximum velocity and time-averaged wall shear stress near the primary entry tear were up to 3% and 6%, respectively, while pressure differences across the true and false lumen differed by up to 6%. More notable variations were found in regions of low wall shear stress when the primary entry tear was close to the left subclavian artery. The results obtained with non-patient-specific waveforms were markedly different. Throughout the aorta, a 25% reduction in stroke volume resulted in up to 28% and 35% reduction in velocity and wall shear stress, respectively, while the shape of flow waveform had a profound influence on the predicted pressure. The results of this study suggest that 3D, TP and flat IVPs all yield reasonably similar velocity and time-averaged wall shear stress results, but TP IVPs should be used where possible for better prediction of pressure. In the absence of patient-specific velocity data, effort should be made to acquire patient’s stroke volume and adjust the applied IVP accordingly.
Computational hemodynamics studies of aortic dissections usually combine patient-specific geometries with idealized or generic boundary conditions. In this study we present a comprehensive methodology for simulations of hemodynamics in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) based on fully patient-specific boundary conditions. Methods: Pre-operative 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Doppler-wire pressure measurements (pre-and post-operative) were acquired from a TBAD patient. These data were used to derive boundary conditions for computational modelling of flow before and after thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). Validations of the computational results were performed by comparing predicted flow patterns with pre-TEVAR 4D flow MRI, as well as pressures with in vivo measurements. Results and Conclusion: Comparison of instantaneous velocity streamlines showed a good qualitative agreement with 4D flow MRI. Quantitative comparison of predicted pressures with pressure measurements revealed a maximum difference of 11 mmHg (-9.7%). Furthermore, our model correctly predicted the reduction of true lumen pressure from 74/115 mmHg pre-TEVAR to 64/107 mmHg post-TEVAR (diastolic/systolic pressures at entry tear level), compared to the corresponding measurements of 72/118 mmHg and 64/114 mmHg. This demonstrates that pre-TEVAR 4D flow MRI can be used to tune boundary conditions for post-TEVAR hemodynamic analyses.
Severity of aortic coarctation (CoA) is currently assessed by estimating trans-coarctation pressure drops through cardiac catheterization or echocardiography. In principle, more detailed information could be obtained non-invasively based on space-and time-resolved magnetic resonance imaging (4D flow) data. Yet the limitations of this imaging technique require testing the accuracy of 4D flow-derived hemodynamic quantities against other methodologies. With the objective of assessing the feasibility and accuracy of this non-invasive method to support the clinical diagnosis of CoA, we developed an algorithm (4DF-FEPPE) to obtain relative pressure distributions from 4D flow data by solving the Poisson pressure equation. 4DF-FEPPE was tested against results from a patient-specific fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulation, whose patient-specific boundary conditions were prescribed based on 4D flow data. Since numerical simulations provide noise-free pressure fields on fine spatial and temporal scales, our analysis allowed to assess the uncertainties related to 4D flow noise and limited resolution. 4DF-FEPPE and FSI results were compared on a series of cross-sections along the aorta. Bland-Altman analysis revealed very good agreement between the two methodologies in terms of instantaneous data at peak systole, end-diastole and time-averaged values: biases (means of differences) were +0.4 mmHg,-1.1 mmHg and +0.6 mmHg, respectively. Limits of agreement (2 SD) were ±0.978 mmHg, ±1.06 mmHg and ±1.97 mmHg, respectively. Peak-to-peak and maximum trans-coarctation pressure drops obtained with 4DF-FEPPE differed from FSI results by 0.75 mmHg and-1.34 mmHg respectively. The present study considers important validation aspects of non-invasive pressure difference estimation based on 4D flow MRI, showing the potential of this technology to be more broadly applied to the clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.