From Detection to Rupture: A Serial Computational Fluid Dynamics Case Study of a Rapidly Expanding, Patient-Specific, Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

  • Barry J. Doyle
  • Timothy M. McGloughlin
  • Eamon G. Kavanagh
  • Peter R. Hoskins
Conference paper

Abstract

Computational hemodynamic studies of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) can help elucidate the mechanisms responsible for growth and development. The aim of this work is to determine if AAAs expand and develop intraluminal thrombus (ILT) in regions of low wall shear stress (WSS) predicted with computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Computed tomography (CT) data of an AAA was acquired at four time-points over 2.5 years, from the time of detection to immediately prior to rupture. We used 3D unsteady, laminar, CFD models to investigate the hemodynamics at each time-point. Our three-dimensional reconstructions showed that the primary region of expansion was in the proximal lobe, which not only coincided with the main region of low time-averaged WSS (TAWSS) in our CFD simulations, but also with the development of ILT in vivo. Interestingly, this region was also the rupture location. This is the first serial computational study of an AAA and the work has shown the potential of CFD to model the changing hemodynamics and the relation with ILT development and AAA growth.

References

  1. 1.
    Doyle BJ, Callanan A, Burke PE et al (2009) Vessel asymmetry as an additional diagnostic tool in the assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 49:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vande Geest JP, Di Martino ES, Bohra A et al (2006) A biomechanics-based rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm risk assessment: demonstrative application. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1085:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kleinstreuer C, Li Z (2006) Analysis and computer program for rupture-risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online 5:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gasser TC, Auer M, Labruto F et al (2010) Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of finite element simulations. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 40:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doyle BJ, Killion J, Callanan A (2012) Use of the photoelastic method and finite element analysis in the assessment of wall strain in abdominal aortic aneurysm models. J Biomech 45:1759–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sacks MS, Vorp DA, Raghavan M et al (1999) In vivo three-dimensional surface geometry of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Biomed Eng 27:469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vorp DA, Vande Geest JP (2005) Biomechanical determinants of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 25:1558–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McGloughlin TM, Doyle BJ (2010) New approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment: engineering insights with clinical gain. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 30: 1687–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doyle BJ, Grace PA, Kavanagh EG et al (2009) Improved assessment and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: the use of 3D reconstructions as a surgical guidance tool in endovascular repair. Ir J Med Sci 178:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Les AS, Shadden SC, Figueroa CA et al (2010) Quantification of hemodynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms during rest and exercise using magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics. Ann Biomed Eng 38:1288–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biasetti J, Gasser T, Auer M et al (2010) Hemodynamics of the normal aorta compared to fusiform and saccular abdominal aortic aneurysms with emphasis on a potential thrombus formation mechanism. Ann Biomed Eng 38:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Molony DS, Callanan A, Morris LG et al (2008) Geometrical enhancements for abdominal aortic stent-grafts. J Endovasc Ther 15:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheidaei A, Hunley SC, Zeinali-Davarani S et al (2011) Simulation of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth with updating hemodynamic loads using a realistic geometry. Med Eng Phys 33:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore J, Maier S, Ku D et al (1994) Hemodynamics in the abdominal aorta: a comparison of in vitro and in vivo measurements. J Appl Physiol 76:1520–1527Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang BT, Cheng CP, Draney MT et al (2006) Abdominal aortic hemodynamics in young healthy adults at rest and during lower limb exercise: quantification using image-based computer modeling. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 291:668–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cornhill JF, Herderick EE, Stary HC (1990) Topography of human aortic sudanophilic lesions. Monogr Atheroscler 15:13–19Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boussel L, Rayz V, McCulloch C et al (2008) Aneurysm growth occurs at region of low wall shear stress: patient-specific correlation of hemodynamics and growth in a longitudinal study. Stroke 39:2997–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang D, Makaroun M, Webster M et al (2002) Effect of intraluminal thrombus on wall stress in patient-specific models of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 36:598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vorp D, Lee P, Wang D et al (2001) Association of intraluminal thrombus in abdominal aortic aneurysm with local hypoxia and wall weakening. J Vasc Surg 34:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Biasetti J, Hussain F, Gasser TC (2011) Blood flow and coherent vortices in the normal and aneurysmatic aortas: a fluid dynamical approach to intra-luminal thrombus formation. J R Soc Interface 8:1449–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basciano C, Kleinstreuer C, Hyun S et al (2011) A relation between near-wall particle-hemodynamics and onset of thrombus formation in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Biomed Eng 39:2010–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardman D, Doyle BJ, Semple SIK et al (2013) On the prediction of monocyte deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Eng Med 227:1114–1124Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doyle B, Callanan A, McGloughlin TM (2007) A comparison of modeling techniques for computing wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online 6:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doyle B, Morris L, Callanan A et al (2008) 3D reconstruction and manufacture of real abdominal aortic aneurysms: from CT scan to silicone model. J Biomech Eng 130:034501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wood NB (1999) Aspects of fluid dynamics applied to the larger arteries. J Theor Biol 199:137–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Egelhoff CJ, Budwig RS, Elger DF et al (1999) Model studies of the flow in abdominal aortic aneurysms during resting and exercise conditions. J Biomech 32:1319–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hardman D, Semple SI, Richards JM et al (2013) Comparison of patient-specific inlet boundary conditions in the numerical modeling of blood flow in abdominal aortic aneurysm disease. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 29:165–178CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suh GY, Les AS, Tenforde AS et al (2011) Quantification of particle residence time in abdominal aortic aneurysms using magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics. Ann Biomed Eng 39:864–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ANSYS® Fluent, Release 14.5, ANSYS Help, Cell Zone and Boundary Conditions, ANSYS, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roache PJ (1994) Perspective: a method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J Fluids Eng 116:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Celik IB, Ghia U, Roache PJ et al (2008) Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluids Eng 130:078001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sazonov I, Nithiarasu P (2012) Semi-automatic surface and volume mesh generation for subject-specific biomedical geometries. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 28:133–157CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morris L, Delassus P, Grace P et al (2006) Effects of flat, parabolic and realistic steady flow inlet profiles on idealised and realistic stent graft fits through abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Med Eng Phys 28:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Molony DS, Callanan A, Kavanagh EG et al (2009) Fluid-structure interaction of a patient-specific abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with an endovascular stent-graft. Biomed Eng Online 8:24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fraser KH, Meagher S, Blake J et al (2008) Characterization of an abdominal aortic velocity waveform in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malek AM, Alper SL, Izumo S (1999) Hemodynamic shear stress and its role in atherosclerosis. JAMA 282:2035–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Darling R, Messina C, Brewster D et al (1977) Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. the case for early resection. Circulation 56:161–164Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    da Silva ES, Rodrigues AJ, Magalhes Castro De Tolosa E et al (2000) Morphology and diameter of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: a prospective autopsy study. Cardiovasc Surg 8: 526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaiser D, Freyberg MA, Friedl P (1997) Lack of hemodynamic forces triggers apoptosis in vascular endothelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 231:586–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lawrence MB, Berg EL, Butcher EC et al (1995) Rolling of lymphocytes and neutrophils on peripheral node addressin and subsequent arrest on ICAM-1 in shear flow. Eur J Immunol 25:1025–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lawrence MB, McIntire LV, Eskin SG (1987) Effect of flow on polymorphonuclear leukocyte/endothelial cell adhesion. Blood 70:1284–1290Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Worthen GS, Smedly LA, Tonnesen MG et al (1987) Effects of shear stress on adhesive interaction between neutrophils and cultured endothelial cells. J Appl Physiol 63:2031–2041Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hardman D, Easson WJ, Hoskins PR (2010) Computation of the distribution of monocyte deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysm disease. In: Dossel O, Schlegel WC (eds) World congress on medical physics and biomedical engineering. IFMBE Proc, vol. 25, pp.1961–1964. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rayz VL, Boussel L, Ge L et al (2010) Flow residence time and regions of intraluminal thrombus deposition in intracranial aneurysms. Ann Biomed Eng 38:3058–3069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jeong J, Hussain F (1995) On the identification of a vortex. J Fluid Mech 285:69–94CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fraser KH, Li MX, Lee WT et al (2009) Fluid-structure interaction in axially symmetric models of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Eng Med 223:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vignon-Clementel I, Figueroa CA, Jansen K et al (2006) Outflow boundary conditions for three-dimensional finite element modeling of blood flow and pressure in arteries. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng 195:3776–3796CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry J. Doyle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Timothy M. McGloughlin
    • 3
    • 4
  • Eamon G. Kavanagh
    • 5
  • Peter R. Hoskins
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems for Medicine Laboratory, School of Mechanical and Chemical EngineeringThe University of Western AustraliaCrawley, PerthAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Cardiovascular ScienceThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Centre for Applied Biomedical Engineering Research (CABER), Department of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Biomedical Engineering, and Materials and Surface Science InstituteUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringKhalifa University of Science, Technology & Research (KUSTAR)Abu DhabiUAE
  5. 5.Department of Vascular SurgeryUniversity Hospital LimerickLimerickIreland
  6. 6.Department of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations