Numerical simulation of fluid–structure interaction in bypassed DeBakey III aortic dissection

Qiao, Aike; Yin, Wencong; Chu, Bo

doi:10.1080/10255842.2014.881806

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not clear at present why such a discrepancy exists between these data and the aforementioned imaging studies. In an FSI simulation of a simplified dissected aorta, Qiao et al [ 15 ], found flap displacements of only up to 0.15 mm , which may be attributable to the use of a Young’s modulus of 100 MPa .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an alternative, patient-tailored computational-fluid dynamics (CFD) approaches, wherein imaging data is used to construct a model of the patient’s aorta in which the flow is simulated, can provide data on WSS and pressure with high resolution [ 8 - 11 ]. Furthermore, the models once validated can be easily altered to evaluate the efficacy of various virtual intervention approaches [ 12 - 15 ]. However, as with most numerical simulations, these approaches require a number of assumptions to be made regarding the boundary conditions (pressure or flow, dynamic or static) and flow properties (viscosity model for blood, turbulence).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aortic dissection simulation models for clinical support: fluid-structure interaction vs. rigid wall models

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe management and prognosis of aortic dissection (AD) is often challenging and the use of personalised computational models is being explored as a tool to improve clinical outcome. Including vessel wall motion in such simulations can provide more realistic and potentially accurate results, but requires significant additional computational resources, as well as expertise. With clinical translation as the final aim, trade-offs between complexity, speed and accuracy are inevitable. The present study explores whether modelling wall motion is worth the additional expense in the case of AD, by carrying out fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations based on a sample patient case.MethodsPatient-specific anatomical details were extracted from computed tomography images to provide the fluid domain, from which the vessel wall was extrapolated. Two-way fluid-structure interaction simulations were performed, with coupled Windkessel boundary conditions and hyperelastic wall properties. The blood was modelled using the Carreau-Yasuda viscosity model and turbulence was accounted for via a shear stress transport model. A simulation without wall motion (rigid wall) was carried out for comparison purposes.ResultsThe displacement of the vessel wall was comparable to reports from imaging studies in terms of intimal flap motion and contraction of the true lumen. Analysis of the haemodynamics around the proximal and distal false lumen in the FSI model showed complex flow structures caused by the expansion and contraction of the vessel wall. These flow patterns led to significantly different predictions of wall shear stress, particularly its oscillatory component, which were not captured by the rigid wall model.ConclusionsThrough comparison with imaging data, the results of the present study indicate that the fluid-structure interaction methodology employed herein is appropriate for simulations of aortic dissection. Regions of high wall shear stress were not significantly altered by the wall motion, however, certain collocated regions of low and oscillatory wall shear stress which may be critical for disease progression were only identified in the FSI simulation. We conclude that, if patient-tailored simulations of aortic dissection are to be used as an interventional planning tool, then the additional complexity, expertise and computational expense required to model wall motion is indeed justified.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aortic dissection simulation models for clinical support: fluid-structure interaction vs. rigid wall models

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aberrant flow patterns result in large spatial variations in wall shear stress (WSS), with high values near the tears and low shear stress in the proximal section of the FL [11]. Computational models have also been developed to predict FL thrombosis and the effectiveness of endovascular and surgical treatments [12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

4-D Flow MRI-Based Computational Analysis of Blood Flow in Patient-Specific Aortic Dissection

Pirola

Guo

Menichini

et al. 2019

IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In addition, FSI models are difficult to setup and demand significant computational effort to be resolved. ADs are arguably one of the most challenging aortic pathologies to simulate and hence it is not surprising that there are only a handful of studies on AD accounting for wall motion in the literature [12,14,15]. Chen et al [16] recently presented an FSI model of an idealised dissected porcine aorta without re-entry tear, assuming a homogeneous linear-elastic material model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A simplified method to account for wall motion in patient-specific blood flow simulations of aortic dissection: Comparison with fluid-structure interaction

Bonfanti

Balabani

Alimohammadi

et al. 2018

Medical Engineering & Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aortic dissection (AD) is a complex and highly patient-specific vascular condition difficult to treat. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can aid the medical management of this pathology, yet its modelling and simulation are challenging. One aspect usually disregarded when modelling AD is the motion of the vessel wall, which has been shown to significantly impact simulation results. Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) methods are difficult to implement and are subject to assumptions regarding the mechanical properties of the vessel wall, which cannot be retrieved non-invasively. This paper presents a simplified 'moving-boundary method' (MBM) to account for the motion of the vessel wall in type-B AD CFD simulations, which can be tuned with non-invasive clinical images (e.g. 2D cine-MRI). The method is firstly validated against the 1D solution of flow through an elastic straight tube; it is then applied to a type-B AD case study and the results are compared to a state-of-the-art, full FSI simulation. Results show that the proposed method can capture the main effects due to the wall motion on the flow field: the average relative difference between flow and pressure waves obtained with the FSI and MBM simulations was less than 1.8% and 1.3%, respectively and the wall shear stress indices were found to have a similar distribution. Moreover, compared to FSI, MBM has the advantage to be less computationally expensive (requiring half of the time of an FSI simulation) and easier to implement, which are important requirements for clinical translation.

show abstract

Numerical simulation of fluid–structure interaction in bypassed DeBakey III aortic dissection

Cited by 23 publications

References 23 publications

Aortic dissection simulation models for clinical support: fluid-structure interaction vs. rigid wall models

Aortic dissection simulation models for clinical support: fluid-structure interaction vs. rigid wall models

4-D Flow MRI-Based Computational Analysis of Blood Flow in Patient-Specific Aortic Dissection

A simplified method to account for wall motion in patient-specific blood flow simulations of aortic dissection: Comparison with fluid-structure interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About