Evaluation of energy dissipation rate as a predictor of mechanical blood damage

Faghih, Mohammad M.; Sharp, M. Keith

doi:10.1111/aor.13418

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The typical approach has been to apply Reynolds averaging and to use a scalar stress that depends on Reynolds stresses or energy dissipation rate. Neither the traditional scalar stress (with correction) nor energy dissipation rate provide universality of red cell membrane tension across laminar shear and extensional flows . In the absence of measurements of hemolysis for validation, a number of mechanisms for blood damage have been incorporated into models of hemolysis in turbulent flow, each of which produce different predictions .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither the traditional scalar stress ( 5 with correction 6 ) nor energy dissipation rate provide universality of red cell membrane tension across laminar shear and extensional flows. 22 In the absence of measurements of hemolysis for validation, a number of mechanisms for blood damage have been incorporated into models of hemolysis in turbulent flow, each of which produce different predictions. 22 While considerable uncertainty remains about how best to scale laminar and turbulent stresses, so long as the stresses are somehow reduced to a scalar in a power-law model, the results reported in this article apply equally to laminar and turbulent flow, and the issues identified are independent of how the scalar stress is calculated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Eulerian versus Lagrangian models of mechanical blood damage and the linearized damage function

Faghih

Sharp

2019

Artificial Organs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two limitations have been discovered in the derivation of the Eulerian method of hemolysis prediction using a linearized blood damage function. First is that in the transformation from the Lagrangian material volume of the original power‐law model to a fixed Eulerian control volume, the spatial dependence of duration of exposure to fluid stress was neglected. This omission has the implication that the Eulerian method as reported is valid only for steady, uniaxial flow in which velocity is constant along streamlines. The second issue is related to linearization, which involves distributing an exponent across an integral. This operation is valid only for limited conditions that include the exponent being unity (which is not the case for any power‐law hemolysis models) or the blood damage function being constant throughout the flow regime. These constraints severely restrict the applicability of the Eulerian method. An example problem is presented that demonstrates that the source term of the Eulerian method as reported does not account for differences in velocity between 2 similar flows. Correcting the source term to match the hemolysis prediction to that of the original, unlinearized method requires an analytical description of the flow field that may not be easily obtained for the complex flows in some cardiovascular devices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Eulerian versus Lagrangian models of mechanical blood damage and the linearized damage function

Faghih

Sharp

2019

Artificial Organs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2014 ), which in equilibrium flows (where the production and destruction of TKE are balanced) are directly correlated with the magnitude of the viscous shear stress experienced by the cells. However, a recent study indicated an inconsistent scaling between the level of energy dissipation rate and cell membrane tension in different types of flows (Faghih and Sharp 2019 ), suggesting that this parameter alone is not sufficient for universal hemolysis predictions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of anisotropic turbulence behavior in pulsatile blood flow

Andersson

Karlsson

2020

Biomech Model Mechanobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turbulent-like hemodynamics with prominent cycle-to-cycle flow variations have received increased attention as a potential stimulus for cardiovascular diseases. These turbulent conditions are typically evaluated in a statistical sense from single scalars extracted from ensemble-averaged tensors (such as the Reynolds stress tensor), limiting the amount of information that can be used for physical interpretations and quality assessments of numerical models. In this study, barycentric anisotropy invariant mapping was used to demonstrate an efficient and comprehensive approach to characterize turbulence-related tensor fields in patient-specific cardiovascular flows, obtained from scale-resolving large eddy simulations. These techniques were also used to analyze some common modeling compromises as well as MRI turbulence measurements through an idealized constriction. The proposed method found explicit sites of elevated turbulence anisotropy, including a broad but time-varying spectrum of characteristics over the flow deceleration phase, which was different for both the steady inflow and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes modeling assumptions. Qualitatively, the MRI results showed overall expected post-stenotic turbulence characteristics, however, also with apparent regions of unrealizable or conceivably physically unrealistic conditions, including the highest turbulence intensity ranges. These findings suggest that more detailed studies of MRI-measured turbulence fields are needed, which hopefully can be assisted by more comprehensive evaluation tools such as the once described herein.

show abstract

“…Mohammad Mohaghegh Faghih and Michael Keith Sharp of the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA investigated the energy dissipation rate as a predictor of mechanical blood damage. The von‐Mises‐like scalar stress was applied to laminar and turbulent flows that each have the same energy dissipation rate.…”

Section: Bioengineering and Biomaterialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Organs 2019: A year in review

Malchesky¹

2020

Artificial Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this Editor’s Review, articles published in 2019 are organized by category and summarized. These provide a brief reflection of the research and progress in artificial organs intended to advance and better human life while providing insight for continued application of these technologies and methods. Artificial Organs continues in the original mission of its founders “to foster communications in the field of artificial organs on an international level.” Artificial Organs continues to publish developments and clinical applications of artificial organ technologies in this broad and expanding field of organ Replacement, Recovery, and Regeneration from all over the world. Peer‐reviewed Special Issues this year included contributions from the 14th International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion edited by Dr Akif Undar, and the 26th Congress of the International Society for Mechanical Circulatory Support edited by Dr Minoru Ono and Dr Francesco Moscato. Additionally, important editorials highlighted the need for sustainability in hemodialysis, challenges and opportunities in mechanical circulatory support, progress in artificial pancreas development, historical perspectives on ventilators and dialysis, tissue engineering for cardiac support, and regional updates from India and China. Our Pioneer Series continues to highlight the many researchers who created this field of study. This year we debuted a new series entitled “Recent Progress in Artificial Organs” prepared by Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili and Elizabeth Maynes of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. This series highlights recent advances and new developments in the field. We take this time also to express our gratitude to our authors for contributing their work to this journal. We offer our very special thanks to our reviewers who give so generously of their time and expertise to review, critique, and especially provide meaningful suggestions to the author’s work. Without our dedicated expert reviewers, the quality expected from such a journal would not be possible. We also express our special thanks to our Publisher, John Wiley & Sons, for their expert attention and support in the production Artificial Organs. We look forward to reporting further advances in the coming years.

show abstract

Evaluation of energy dissipation rate as a predictor of mechanical blood damage

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

On Eulerian versus Lagrangian models of mechanical blood damage and the linearized damage function

On Eulerian versus Lagrangian models of mechanical blood damage and the linearized damage function

Characterization of anisotropic turbulence behavior in pulsatile blood flow

Artificial Organs 2019: A year in review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About