Validation of Numerical Simulations of Thoracic Aorta Hemodynamics: Comparison with In Vivo Measurements and Stochastic Sensitivity Analysis
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and 4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are synergically used for the simulation and the analysis of the flow in a patient-specific geometry of a healthy thoracic aorta.
CFD simulations are carried out through the open-source code SimVascular. The MRI data are used, first, to provide patient-specific boundary conditions. In particular, the experimentally acquired flow rate waveform is imposed at the inlet, while at the outlets the RCR parameters of the Windkessel model are tuned in order to match the experimentally measured fractions of flow rate exiting each domain outlet during an entire cardiac cycle. Then, the MRI data are used to validate the results of the hemodynamic simulations. As expected, with a rigid-wall model the computed flow rate waveforms at the outlets do not show the time lag respect to the inlet waveform conversely found in MRI data. We therefore evaluate the effect of wall compliance by using a linear elastic model with homogeneous and isotropic properties and changing the value of the Young’s modulus. A stochastic analysis based on the polynomial chaos approach is adopted, which allows continuous response surfaces to be obtained in the parameter space starting from a few deterministic simulations.
The flow rate waveform can be accurately reproduced by the compliant simulations in the ascending aorta; on the other hand, in the aortic arch and in the descending aorta, the experimental time delay can be matched with low values of the Young’s modulus, close to the average value estimated from experiments. However, by decreasing the Young’s modulus the underestimation of the peak flow rate becomes more significant. As for the velocity maps, we found a generally good qualitative agreement of simulations with MRI data. The main difference is that the simulations overestimate the extent of reverse flow regions or predict reverse flow when it is absent in the experimental data. Finally, a significant sensitivity to wall compliance of instantaneous shear stresses during large part of the cardiac cycle period is observed; the variability of the time-averaged wall shear stresses remains however very low.
In summary, a successful integration of hemodynamic simulations and of MRI data for a patient-specific simulation has been shown. The wall compliance seems to have a significant impact on the numerical predictions; a larger wall elasticity generally improves the agreement with experimental data.
KeywordsAorta Computational fluid dynamics Magnetic resonance imaging Validation Polynomial chaos expansion
The authors are grateful to Pau Simarro for his precious contribution in carrying out the numerical simulations.
No funding was received.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. No animal studies were carried out for this study.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Boccadifuoco, A., A. Mariotti, S. Celi, N. Martini, and M. V. Salvetti. Uncertainty quantification in numerical simulations of the flow in thoracic aortic aneurysms. ECCOMAS Congr. 2016 Proc. 7th Eur. Congr. Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. Eng. 3:6226, 2016.Google Scholar
- 4.Boccadifuoco, A., A. Mariotti, S. Celi, N. Martini, and M. V. Salvetti. Effects of inlet conditions in the simulation of hemodynamics in a thoracic aortic aneurysm. AIMETA 2017 Proc. 23rd Conf. Ital. Assoc. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2:1706, 2017.Google Scholar
- 6.Bozzi, S., U. Morbiducci, D. Gallo, R. Ponzini, G. Rizzo, C. Bignardi, and G. Passoni. Uncertainty propagation of phase contrast-MRI derived inlet boundary conditions in computational hemodynamics models of thoracic aorta. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 20(10):1104, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Capellini, K., E. Vignali, E. Costa, E. Gasparotti, M. E. Biancolini, L. Landini, V. Positano, and S. Celi. Computational fluid dynamic study for aTAA hemodynamics: an integrated image-based and radial basis functions mesh morphing approach. J. Biomech. Eng. 140(11):111007, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Celi, S., and S. Berti. Chap. 1. In: Aneurysm. Rijeka: InTech, 2012, p. 326.Google Scholar
- 13.Chiastra, C., S. Migliori, F. Burzotta, G. Dubini, and F. Migliavacca. Patient-specific modeling of stented coronary arteries reconstructed from optical coherence tomography: towards a widespread clinical use of fluid dynamics analyses. J. Cardiovasc. Transl. Res. 11:1–17, 2017.Google Scholar
- 14.Condemi, F., S. Campisi, M. Viallon, T. Troalen, G. Xuexin, A. J. Barker, M. Markl, P. Croisille, O. Trabelsi, C. Cavinato, A. Duprey, and S. Avril. Fluid- and biomechanical analysis of ascending thoracic aorta aneurysm with concomitant aortic insufficiency. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45(12):2921, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Gallo, v, G. De Santis, F. Negri, D. Tresoldi, R. Ponzini, D. Massai, M. A. Deriu, P. Segers, B. Verhegghe, G. Rizzo, and U. Morbiducci. On the use of in vivo measured flow rates as boundary conditions for image-based hemodynamic models of the human aorta: implications for indicators of abnormal flow. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40(3):729, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Korteweg, D. Uber die fortpflanzungsgeschwindigkeit des schalles in elastiischen rohren. Ann. Phys. Chem. 5:52537, 1878.Google Scholar
- 27.Morbiducci, U., D. Gallo, S. Cristofanelli, R. Ponzini, M. A. Deriu, G. Rizzo, and D. A. Steinman. A rational approach to defining principal axes of multidirectional wall shear stress in realistic vascular geometries, with application to the study of the influence of helical flow on wall shear stress directionality in aorta. J. Biomech. 48(6):899, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Quicken, S., W. P. Donders, E. M. J. van Disseldorp, K. Gashi, B. M. E. Mees, F. N. van de Vosse, R. G. P. Lopata, T. Delhaas, and W. Huberts. Application of an adaptive polynomial chaos expansion on computationally expensive three-dimensional cardiovascular models for uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis. J. Biomech. Eng. 138(12):121010, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Sarrami-Foroushani, A., M. N. Esfahany, A. Nasiraei Moghaddam, H. Saligheh Rad, K. Firouznia, M. Shakiba, H. Ghanaati, I. D. Wilkinson, and A. F. Frangi. Velocity measurement in carotid artery: quantitative comparison of time-resolved 3D phase-contrast MRI and image-based computational fluid dynamics. Iran. J. Radiol. 12(4):e18286, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Updegrove, A., N. M. Wilson, J. Merkow, H. Lan, A. L. Marsden, and S. C. Shadden. SimVascular: an open source pipeline for cardiovascular simulation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45:1–17, 2016.Google Scholar
- 41.Wang, Y., D. Joannic, P. Juillion, A. Monnet, P. Delassus, A. Lalande, and J. F. Fontaine. Validation of the strain assessment of a phantom of abdominal aortic aneurysm: comparison of results obtained from magnetic resonance imaging and stereovision measurements. J. Biomech. Eng. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4038743.