Blood flow pattern and wall shear stress in the internal carotid arteries of healthy subjects

Abstract

Flow patterns were variant and complicated at the origin of the ICAs. Different types of local WSS spatial distributions were found around the vessel circumference.

Wall Shear Stress in Major Cerebral Arteries as a Function of Age and Gender—A Study of 301 Healthy Volunteers

“…Compared volunteers with other findings using magnetic resonance as a modality, the MWSS values for the CCA found in this study (7.0 and 7.2 dynes/cm 2 for the LCCA and RCCA, respectively) fall within reported ranges (7.8 dynes/cm 2 by Oyre et al, 8.0 dynes/cm 2 by Oshinski et al, 9.9 and 9.7 dynes/cm 2 in LCCA and RCCA, respectively, by Sui et al, 11‐13 dynes/cm 2 Reneman et al). Compared to the MWSS value of the BA found in van Es et al to be 14.74 dynes/cm 2 , our result is 18.8 dynes/cm 2 .…”

“…However, calculating WSS in other cranial vessels is similarly important due to its influence on other pathologies such as aneurysms and destabilizing plaques . To date, WSS has been measured in vivo in healthy subjects in the following arteries: right and left common carotid, basilar, right and left internal carotid, and right and left middle cerebral arteries. The effect of age and gender on WSS were also reported in studies for healthy individuals .…”

Volumetric arterial wall shear stress calculation based on cine phase contrast MRI

“…In the carotid artery, the WSS calculations in the literature are mainly based on ultrasound velocity measurements (0.5-1.0 Pa) (38,39) and 2D cine PC-MRI (0-2.5 Pa) (6,40,41). For the carotid artery, our WSS calculations at the highest resolution of 0.4 mm match the WSS magnitude values reported in the recent literature.…”

MRI-based quantification of outflow boundary conditions for computational fluid dynamics of stenosed human carotid arteries

“…The calculated mean WSS in the CCA was lower (0.470.2 vs. 1.15 Pa), while the mean WSS in the ICA was slightly higher than reported in the literature (0.770.4 vs. 0.56 Pa) (Cheng et al, 2007;Sui et al, 2008). This difference can be partly explained by the combination of a slightly lower flow combined with a larger diameter of the CCA compared to literature (8.2 71.2 vs. 6.3 mm) (Riley et al, 1992), resulting in a lower WSS.…”