In Vivo Validation of a Cardiovascular Simulation Model in Pigs

Abstract

Many computer simulation models of the cardiovascular system, of varying complexity and objectives, have been proposed in physiological science. Every model needs to be parameterized and evaluated individually. We conducted a porcine animal model to parameterize and evaluate a computer simulation model, recently proposed by our group. The results of an animal model, on thirteen healthy pigs, were used to generate consistent parameterization data for the full heart computer simulation model. To evaluate the simulation model, differences between the resulting simulation output and original animal data were analysed. The input parameters of the animal model, used to individualize the computer simulation, showed high interindividual variability (range of coefficient of variation: 10.1–84.5%), which was well-reflected by the resulting haemodynamic output parameters of the simulation (range of coefficient of variation: 12.6–45.7%). The overall bias between the animal and simulation model was low (mean: −3.24%, range: from −26.5 to 20.1%). The simulation model used in this study was able to adapt to the high physiological variability in the animal model. Possible reasons for the remaining differences between the animal and simulation model might be a static measurement error, unconsidered inaccuracies within the model, or unconsidered physiological interactions.

Correct Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Reduces Stagnant Blood Flow and the Risk of Thrombus Formation: A Proof-of-Concept Experimental Study Using 4D Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…Nevertheless, as patients with long-standing persistent AF have minimal phasic variations in LA volume, errors due to neglecting LA elasticity and contractility seem to be minimal. In addition, previous studies have shown that kjronline.org 4D flow MRI studies using rigid cardiovascular phantoms and computational fluid dynamics studies based on fixed boundary assumptions enable reliable validation of in vivo results [39][40][41][42]. Third, there are limitations in the flow simulation.…”