Purpose: The analysis of pathological human left ventricular hemodynamics using high-resolved image-based blood flow simulations shows a major potential for examining mitral valve insufficiency (MI) under exercise conditions. Since capturing and simulating the patient-specific movement of the left ventricle (LV) during rest and exercise is challenging, this study aims to propose a workflow to analyze the hemodynamics within the pathologically moving LV. Methods: Patient-specific ultrasound (US) data of ten patients with MI in different stages were captured with three-dimensional real-time echocardiography. US measurements were performed while patients were resting and while doing handgrip exercise (2–4 min work). Patient-specific hemodynamic simulations were carried out based on the captured ventricular wall movement. Velocity and kinetic energy were analyzed for rest and exercise and for the different MI stages. Results: The results reveal a dependency of the kinetic energy over time in the ventricular volume curves. Concerning the comparison between rest and exercise, the left ventricular function reveals lower systolic kinetic energy under exercise (kinetic energy normalized by EDV; mean ± standard deviation: rest = 0.16 ± 0.14; exercise = 0.06 ± 0.05; p-value = 0.04). Comparing patients with non-limiting (MI I) and mild/moderate (MI II/III) MI, lower velocities (mean ± standard deviation: non-limiting = 0.10 ± 0.03; mild/moderate = 0.06 ± 0.02; p-value = 0.01) and lower diastolic kinetic energy (kinetic energy normalized by EDV; mean ± standard deviation: non-limiting = 0.45 ± 0.30; mild/moderate = 0.20 ± 0.19; p-value = 0.03) were found for the latter. Conclusion: With the proposed workflow, the hemodynamics within LVs with MI can be analyzed under rest and exercise. The results reveal the importance of the patient-specific wall movement when analyzing intraventricular hemodynamics. These findings can be further used within patient-specific simulations, based on varying the imaging and segmentation methods.
Blood flow within the left ventricle provides important information regarding cardiac function in health and disease. The mitral valve strongly influences the formation of flow structures and there exist various approaches for the representation of the valve in numerical models of left ventricular blood flow. However, a systematic comparison of the various mitral valve models is missing, making a priori decisions considering the overall model's context of use impossible. Within this study, a benchmark setup to compare the influence of mitral valve modeling strategies on intraventricular flow features was developed. Then, five mitral valve models of increasing complexity: no modeling, static wall, 2D and 3D porous medium with time‐dependent porosity, and one‐way fluid–structure interaction (FSI) were compared with each other. The flow features velocity, kinetic energy, transmitral pressure drop, vortex formation, flow asymmetry as well as computational cost and ease‐of‐implementation were evaluated. The one‐way FSI approach provides the highest level of flow detail, which is accompanied by the highest numerical costs and challenges with the implementation. As an alternative, the porous medium approach with the expansion including time‐dependent porosity provides good results with up to 10% deviations in the flow features (except the transmitral pressure drop) in comparison to the FSI model and only a fraction (11%) of numerical costs. However, jet propagation speed is highly underestimated by all alternative approaches to the FSI model. Taken together, our benchmark setup allows a quantitative comparison of various mitral valve modeling approaches and is provided to the scientific community for further testing and expansion.
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.