Steady Flow in a Patient-Averaged Inferior Vena Cava—Part I: Particle Image Velocimetry Measurements at Rest and Exercise Conditions
- 47 Downloads
Although many previous computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies have investigated the hemodynamics in the inferior vena cava (IVC), few studies have compared computational predictions to experimental data, and only qualitative comparisons have been made. Herein, we provide particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements of flow in a patient-averaged IVC geometry under idealized conditions typical of those used in the preclinical evaluation of IVC filters.
Measurements are acquired under rest and exercise flow rate conditions in an optically transparent model fabricated using 3D printing. To ensure that boundary conditions are well-defined and to make follow-on CFD validation studies more convenient, fully-developed flow is provided at the inlets (i.e., the iliac veins) by extending them with straight rigid tubing longer than the estimated entrance lengths. Velocity measurements are then obtained at the downstream end of the tubing to confirm Poiseuille inflow boundary conditions.
Measurements in the infrarenal IVC reveal that flow profiles are blunter in the sagittal plane (minor axis) than in the coronal plane (major axis). Peak in-plane velocity magnitudes are 4.9 cm/s and 27 cm/s under the rest and exercise conditions, respectively. Flow profiles are less parabolic and exhibit more inflection points at the higher flow rate. Bimodal velocity peaks are also observed in the sagittal plane at the elevated flow condition.
The IVC geometry, boundary conditions, and infrarenal velocity measurements are provided for download on a free and publicly accessible repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7198703. These data will facilitate future CFD validation studies of idealized, in vitro IVC hemodynamics and of similar laminar flows in vascular geometries.
KeywordsInferior vena cava Hemodynamics Particle image velocimetry Verification and validation
We thank Prasanna Hariharan for reviewing the manuscript and for helpful discussions. This study was supported by the FDA Critical Path Initiative (HHSF223201610405P) and the Penn State College of Engineering Instrumentation Grant. The findings and conclusions in this article have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. FDA and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.ASME V&V 40 Committee. Draft V&V 40—Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Methods for Medical Devices. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.Google Scholar
- 7.Berg, P., D. Stucht, G. Janiga, O. Beuing, O. Speck, and D. Thévenin. Cerebral blood flow in a healthy circle of Willis and two intracranial aneurysms: computational fluid dynamics versus four-dimensional phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. J. Biomech. Eng. 136(4):041003, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bos, A., T. Van Ha, D. van Beek, M. Ginsburg, S. Zangan, R. Navuluri, J. Lorenz, and B. Funaki. Strut penetration: local complications, breakthrough pulmonary embolism, and retrieval failure in patients with Celect vena cava filters. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 26(1):101–106, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Cebral, J. R., M. A. Castro, J. E. Burgess, R. S. Pergolizzi, M. J. Sheridan, and C. M. Putman. Characterization of cerebral aneurysms for assessing risk of rupture by using patient-specific computational hemodynamics models. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 26(10):2550–2559, 2005.Google Scholar
- 14.Ciozda, W., I. Kedan, R. Khandwalla, R. Zimmer, and A. Kimchi. The efficacy of sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter as an estimate of central venous pressure. Cardiology 134:156, 2016.Google Scholar
- 15.Craven, A., K. I. Aycock, M. Z. Gallagher, and K. B. Manning. Steady flow in a patient-averaged inferior vena cava - Part II: Computational Fluid Dynamics Verification and Validation. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. In press, 2018.Google Scholar
- 17.Hariharan, P., M. Giarra, V. Reddy, S. W. Day, K. B. Manning, S. Deutsch, S. F. Stewart, M. R. Myers, M. R. Berman, G. W. Burgreen, et al. Multilaboratory particle image velocimetry analysis of the FDA benchmark nozzle model to support validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations. J. Biomech. Eng. 133(4):041002, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Hostetter, T. H. Human renal response to meat meal. Am. J. Physiol. 250(4):F613–F618, 1986.Google Scholar
- 20.Jaeger, H. J., S. Kolb, T. Mair, M. Geller, A. Christmann, R. K. Kinne, K. D. Mathias, et al. In vitro model for the evaluation of inferior vena cava filters: effect of experimental parameters on thrombus-capturing efficacy of the VenaTech-LGM filter. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 9(2):295–304, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Kalantarinia, K., J. T. Belcik, J. T. Patrie, and K. Wei. Real-time measurement of renal blood flow in healthy subjects using contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Am. J. Physiol. 297:F1129–F1134, 2009.Google Scholar
- 28.Migliavacca, F., P. J. Kilner, G. Pennati, G. Dubini, R. Pietrabissa, R. Fumero, and M. R. de Leval. Computational fluid dynamic and magnetic resonance analyses of flow distribution between the lungs after total cavopulmonary connection. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 46(4):393–399, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Mismetti, P., S. Laporte, O. Pellerin, P.-V. Ennezat, F. Couturaud, A. Elias, N. Falvo, N. Meneveau, I. Quere, P.-M. Roy, et al. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava filter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 313(16):1627–1635, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Pekkan, K., B. Whited, K. Kanter, S. Sharma, D. De Zelicourt, K. Sundareswaran, D. Frakes, J. Rossignac, and A. P. Yoganathan. Patient-specific surgical planning and hemodynamic computational fluid dynamics optimization through free-form haptic anatomy editing tool (SURGEM). Med. Biol. Eng. Compu. 46(11):1139–1152, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Robinson, R. A., L. H. Herbertson, S. S. Das, R. A. Malinauskas, W. F. Pritchard, and L. W. Grossman. Limitations of using synthetic blood clots for measuring in vitro clot capture efficiency of inferior vena cava filters. Med. Devices (Auckl.) 6:49, 2013.Google Scholar
- 50.Stewart, S. F., E. G. Paterson, G. W. Burgreen, P. Hariharan, M. Giarra, V. Reddy, S. W. Day, K. B. Manning, S. Deutsch, M. R. Berman, et al. Assessment of CFD performance in simulations of an idealized medical device: results of FDAs first computational interlaboratory study. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 3(2):139–160, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.US Food and Drug Administration. Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration, 2016.Google Scholar