Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 30, Issue 8, pp 1020–1032 | Cite as

Quantification of Wall Shear Stress in Large Blood Vessels Using Lagrangian Interpolation Functions with Cine Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • Christopher P. Cheng
  • David Parker
  • Charles A. Taylor


Arterial wall shear stress is hypothesized to be an important factor in the localization of atherosclerosis. Current methods to compute wall shear stress from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data do not account for flow profiles characteristic of pulsatile flow in noncircular vessel lumens. We describe a method to quantify wall shear stress in large blood vessels by differentiating velocity interpolation functions defined using cine phase-contrast MRI data on a band of elements in the neighborhood of the vessel wall. Validation was performed with software phantoms and an in vitro flow phantom. At an image resolution corresponding to in vivo imaging data of the human abdominal aorta, time-averaged, spatially averaged wall shear stress for steady and pulsatile flow were determined to be within 16% and 23% of the analytic solution, respectively. These errors were reduced to 5% and 8% with doubling in image resolution. For the pulsatile software phantom, the oscillation in shear stress was predicted to within 5%. The mean absolute error of circumferentially resolved shear stress for the nonaxisymmetric phantom decreased from 28% to 15% with a doubling in image resolution. The irregularly shaped phantom and in vitro investigation demonstrated convergence of the calculated values with increased image resolution. We quantified the shear stress at the supraceliac and infrarenal regions of a human abdominal aorta to be 3.4 and 2.3 dyn/cm2, respectively. © 2002 Biomedical Engineering Society.

PAC2002: 8761-c, 8719Uv

Atherosclerosis Hemodynamics Cine phase contrast Pulsatile flow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berne, R. M., and M. N. Levy. Cardiovascular Physiology, 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book, 1997, pp. 1-5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein, M. A., et al. Concomitant gradient terms in phase contrast MR: Analysis and correction. Magn. Reson. Med. 39:300-308, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caro, C. G., J. M. Fitz-Gerald, and R. C. Schroter. Atheroma and arterial wall shear: Observation, correlation and proposal of a shear dependent mass transfer mecahanism for atherogenesis. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 177:109-159, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornhill, J., E. Herderick, and H. Stary. Topography of human aortic sudanophilic lesions. In: Monographs in Atherosclerosis, edited by D. W. Liepsch. 1990, pp. 13-19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cybulsky, M. I., and M. A. Gimbrone, Jr. Endothelial expression of a mononuclear leukocyte adhesion molecule during atherogenesis. Science 251:788-791, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies, P. F. Flow-mediated endothelial mechanotransduction. Physiol. Rev. 75:519-560, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fatemi, R. S., and S. E. Rittgers. Derivation of shear rates from near-wall lda measurements under steady and pulsatile flow conditions. J. Biomech. Eng. 116:347-368, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, M. H., G. M. Hutchins, and C. B. Bargeron. Correlation between intimal thickness and fluid shear in human arteries. Atherosclerosis 39:425, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, X., and D. Ku. Pulsatile flow in the human left coronary artery bifurcation: Average conditions. J. Biomech. Eng. 118:74-82, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hughes, T. The Finite Element Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ku, D., et al. Pulsatile flow and atherosclerosis in the human carotid bifurcation: Positive correlation between plaque location and low oscillating shear stress. Arteriosclerosis (Dallas) 5:293-302, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loth, F. Velocity and wall shear stress measurements inside a vascular graft model under steady and pulsatile flow conditions. Georgia Institute of Technology, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lou, Z., W. J. Yang, and P. D. Stein. Errors in the estimate of arterial wall shear rates that result from curve fitting of velocity profiles. J. Biomech. Eng. 26:383-390, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masaryk, A. M., et al. In vitro and in vivo comparison of three MR measurement methods for calculating vascular shear stress in the internal carotid artery. Am. J. Neuroradio. 20:237-245, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milner, J. S., et al. Hemodynamics of human carotid artery bifurcations: Computational studies with models reconstructed from magnetic resonance imaging of normal subject. J. Vasc. Surg. 28:143-156, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nerem, R. M. Vascular fluid mechanics, the arterial wall, and atherosclerosis. J. Biomech. Eng. 114:274-282, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osher, S., and J. A. Sethian. Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations. J. Comput. Phys. 79:12-49, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oshinski, J. N., et al. Determination of wall shear stress in the aorta with the use of MR phase velocity mapping. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 5:640-647, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oyre, S., et al. In vivo wall shear stress measured by magnetic resonance velocity mapping in the normal human abdominal aorta. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc Surg. 13:263-271, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oyre, S., et al. Quantitation of circumferential subpixel vessel wall position and wall shear stress by multiple sectored three-dimensional paraboloid modeling of velocity encoded cine MR. Magn. Reson. Med. 40:645-655, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pedersen, E. M., M. Agerbaek, I. B. Kristensen, and A. P. Yoganathan. Wall shear stress and early atherosclerotic lesions in the abdominal aorta in young adults. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc Surg. 13:443-451, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pelc, N. J., et al. Phase contrast cine magnetic resonance imaging. Magn. Reson. Q. 7:229-254, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perktold, K., et al. Pulsatile non-Newtonian flow in threedimensional carotid bifurcation models: Numerical study of flow phenomena under different bifurcation angles. J. Biomed. Eng. 13:507-515, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perktold, K., and G. Rappitsch. Computer simulation of local blood flow and vessel mechanics in a compliant carotid artery bifurcation model. J. Biomech. 28:845-856, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sawchuk, A. P., et al. Prospective, in vivo study of the relationship between blood flow hemodynamics and atherosclerosis in a hyperlipidemic swine model. J. Vasc. Surg. 19:58-64, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sethian, J. A. Level Set Methods. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor, C., T. Hughes, and C. Zarins. Computational investigations in vascular disease. Comput. Phys. 10:224-232, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor, C. A., T. J. R. Hughes, and C. K. Zarins. Finite element modeling of three-dimensional pulsatile flow in the abdominal aorta: Relevance to atherosclerosis. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 26:1-14, 1998.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, K., R. Dutton, and C. Taylor. Geometric image segmentation and image-based model construction for computational hemodynamics. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 18:33-39, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, K. C. Level set methods for computational prototyping with application to hemodynamic modeling. In: Electrical Engineering. 2001, Stanford University: Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2001.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Womersley, J. Method for the calculation of velocity, rate of flow and viscous drag in arteries when the pressure gradient is known. J. Physiol. (London) 127:553-563, 1955.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zarins, C. K., et al. Carotid bifurcation atherosclerosis: Quantitative correlation of plaque localization with flow velocity profiles and wall shear stress. Circ. Res. 53:502-514, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher P. Cheng
    • 1
  • David Parker
    • 1
  • Charles A. Taylor
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanford
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations