Advertisement

Wall Stress and Geometry Measures in Electively Repaired Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

  • Wei Wu
  • Balaji Rengarajan
  • Mirunalini Thirugnanasambandam
  • Shalin Parikh
  • Raymond Gomez
  • Victor De Oliveira
  • Satish C. Muluk
  • Ender A. FinolEmail author
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a vascular disease characterized by the enlargement of the infrarenal segment of the aorta. A ruptured AAA can cause internal bleeding and carries a high mortality rate, which is why the clinical management of the disease is focused on preventing aneurysm rupture. AAA rupture risk is estimated by the change in maximum diameter over time (i.e., growth rate) or if the diameter reaches a prescribed threshold. The latter is typically 5.5 cm in most clinical centers, at which time surgical intervention is recommended. While a size-based criterion is suitable for most patients who are diagnosed at an early stage of the disease, it is well known that some small AAA rupture or patients become symptomatic prior to a maximum diameter of 5.5 cm. Consequently, the mechanical stress in the aortic wall can also be used as an integral component of a biomechanics-based rupture risk assessment strategy. In this work, we seek to identify geometric characteristics that correlate strongly with wall stress using a sample space of 100 asymptomatic, unruptured, electively repaired AAA models. The segmentation of the clinical images, volume meshing, and quantification of up to 45 geometric measures of each AAA were done using in-house Matlab scripts. Finite element analysis was performed to compute the first principal stress distributions from which three global biomechanical parameters were calculated: peak wall stress, 99th percentile wall stress and spatially averaged wall stress. Following a feature reduction approach consisting of Pearson’s correlation matrices with Bonferroni correction and linear regressions, a multivariate stepwise regression analysis was conducted to find the geometric measures most highly correlated with each of the biomechanical parameters. Our findings indicate that wall stress can be predicted by geometric indices with an accuracy of up to 94% when AAA models are generated with uniform wall thickness and up to 67% for patient specific, non-uniform wall thickness AAA. These geometric predictors of wall stress could be used in lieu of complex finite element models as part of a geometry-based protocol for rupture risk assessment.

Keywords

Aneurysm Geometric modeling Wall stress Regression analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose and would like to acknowledge research funding from National Institutes of Health award R01HL121293. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The use of ANSYS Ensight is gratefully acknowledged through an educational licensing agreement with Ansys, Inc.

Supplementary material

10439_2019_2261_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 74 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, S., A. Qamar, V. Sharma, and A. Sharma. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: a comprehensive review. Exp. Clin. Cardiol. 16:11–15, 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beller, C. J., M. M. Gebhard, M. Karck, and M. R. Labrosse. Usefulness and limitations of computational models in aortic disease risk stratification. J. Vasc. Surg. 52:1572–1579, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, P. M., D. T. Zelt, and B. Sobolev. The risk of rupture in untreated aneurysms: the impact of size, gender, and expansion rate. J. Vasc. Surg. 37:280–284, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA). Aortic Aneurysm Fact Sheet. https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_aortic_aneurysm.htm. 2014.
  5. 5.
    Chauhan, S. S., C. A. Gutierrez, M. Thirugnanasambandam, V. De Oliveira, S. C. Muluk, M. K. Eskandari, and E. A. Finol. The association between geometry and wall stress in emergently repaired abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45:1908–1916, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darling, R., C. Messina, D. Brewster, and L. Ottinger. Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case for early resection. Circulaltion 56:161–164, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fillinger, M. F., M. L. Raghavan, S. P. Marra, J. L. Cronenwett, and F. E. Kennedy. In vivo analysis of mechanical wall stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk. J. Vasc. Surg. 36:589–597, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Georgakarakos, E., C. V. Ioannou, Y. Kamarianakis, Y. Papaharilaou, T. Kostas, E. Manousaki, and A. N. Katsamouris. The role of geometric parameters in the prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 39:42–48, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giannoglou, G., G. Giannakoulas, J. Soulis, Y. Chatzizisis, T. Perdikides, N. Melas, G. Parcharidis, and G. Louridas. Predicting the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms by utilizing various geometrical parameters: revisiting the diameter criterion. Angiology 57:487–494, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joldes, G. R., K. Miller, A. Wittek, and B. Doyle. A simple, effective and clinically applicable method to compute abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 58:139–148, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joldes, G. R., K. Miller, A. Wittek, R. O. Forsythe, D. E. Newby, and B. J. Doyle. BioPARR: a software system for estimating the rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Sci. Rep. 7:4641, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khosla, S., D. R. Morris, J. V. Moxon, P. J. Walker, T. C. Gasser, and J. Golledge. Meta-analysis of peak wall stress in ruptured, symptomatic and intact abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br. J. Surg. 101:1350–1357, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larsson, E., F. Labruto, T. C. Gasser, J. Swedenborg, and R. Hultgren. Analysis of aortic wall stress and rupture risk in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm with a gender perspective. J. Vasc. Surg. 54:295–299, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lederle, F. A., G. R. Johnson, S. E. Wilson, D. J. Ballard, W. D. Jordan, Jr, J. Blebea, F. N. Littooy, J. A. Freischlag, D. Bandyk, J. H. Rapp, and A. A. Salam. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. Jama 287:2968–2972, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, K., J. J. Zhu, J. Shum, Y. J. Zhang, S. C. Muluk, A. Chandra, M. K. Eskandari, and E. A. Finol. Surface curvature as a classifier of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparative analysis. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41:562–576, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liljeqvist, M. L., R. Hultgren, T. C. Gasser, and J. Roy. Volume growth of abdominal aortic aneurysms correlates with baseline volume and increasing finite element analysis-derived rupture risk. J. Vasc. Surg. 63:1434–1442, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maier, A., M. Gee, C. Reeps, J. Pongratz, H.-H. Eckstein, and W. Wall. A comparison of diameter, wall stress, and rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:3124–3134, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martufi, G., E. S. Di Martino, C. H. Amon, S. C. Muluk, and E. A. Finol. Three-dimensional geometrical characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms: image-based wall thickness distribution. J. Biomech. Eng. 131:061015, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pérez, E. A., L. R. Rojas-Solórzano, and E. Finol. Geometric predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm maximum wall stress. Chem. Eng. Trans. 49:73–78, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Polzer, S., and T. C. Gasser. Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms based on a novel probabilistic rupture risk index. J. R. Soc. Interface 12:20150852, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raghavan, M. L., J. Kratzberg, E. M. C. de Tolosa, M. M. Hanaoka, P. Walker, and E. S. da Silva. Regional distribution of wall thickness and failure properties of human abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Biomech. 39:3010–3016, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raghavan, M. L., and D. A. Vorp. Toward a biomechanical tool to evaluate rupture potential of abdominal aortic aneurysm: identification of a finite strain constitutive model and evaluation of its applicability. J. Biomech. 33:475–482, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raut, S. S. Patient-specific 3D vascular reconstruction and computational assessment of biomechanics—an application to abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ph.D. Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University, 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacks, M. S., D. A. Vorp, M. L. Raghavan, M. P. Federle, and M. W. Webster. In vivo three-dimensional surface geometry of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 27:469–479, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaffer, J. P. Multiple hypothesis-testing. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 46:561–584, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shum, J. Risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms by geometry quantification measures. Ph.D. Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University, 2011.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shum, J., E. S. DiMartino, A. Goldhammer, D. H. Goldman, L. C. Acker, G. Patel, J. H. Ng, G. Martufi, and E. A. Finol. Semiautomatic vessel wall detection and quantification of wall thickness in computed tomography images of human abdominal aortic aneurysms. Med. Phys. 37:638–648, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shum, J., G. Martufi, E. Di Martino, C. B. Washington, J. Grisafi, S. C. Muluk, and E. A. Finol. Quantitative assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm geometry. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:277–286, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shum, J., A. Xu, I. Chatnuntawech, and E. A. Finol. A framework for the automatic generation of surface topologies for abdominal aortic aneurysm models. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:249–259, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Speelman, L., E. M. H. Bosboom, G. W. H. Schurink, F. Hellenthal, J. Buth, M. Breeuwer, M. J. Jacobs, and F. N. van de Vosse. Patient-specific AAA wall stress analysis: 99-percentile versus peak stress. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 36:668–676, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tang, A., C. Kauffmann, S. Tremblay-Paquet, S. Elkouri, O. Steinmetz, F. Morin-Roy, L. Cloutier-Gill, and G. Soulez. Morphologic evaluation of ruptured and symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm by three-dimensional modeling. J. Vasc. Surg. 59:894–902, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woolson, R. F., and W. R. Clarke. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Biomedical Data. Hoboken: Wiley, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xenos, M., S. H. Rambhia, Y. Alemu, S. Einav, N. Labropoulos, A. Tassiopoulos, J. J. Ricotta, and D. Bluestein. Patient-based abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction with fluid structure interaction modeling. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:3323–3337, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.UTSA/UTHSA Joint Graduate Program in Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management Science and StatisticsUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  4. 4.Department of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, Allegheny Health NetworkAllegheny General HospitalPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations