Patient-Specific Hemodynamic Evaluation of an Aortic Coarctation under Rest and Stress Conditions

  • Priti G. Albal
  • Tyson A. Montidoro
  • Onur Dur
  • Prahlad G. Menon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8330)

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of internal hemodynamics in complex vascular models can provide accurate estimates of pressure gradients to assist time-critical diagnostics or surgical decisions. Compared to high-fidelity pressure transducers, CFD offers flexibility to analyze baseline hemodynamic characteristics at rest but also under stress conditions without application of pharmacological stress agents which present undesirable side effects. In this study, the variations of pressure gradient and velocity field across a mild thoracic coarctation of aorta (CoA) is studied under pulsatile ascending aortic flow, simulative of both rest and stress cardiac output. Simulations were conducted in FLUENT 14.5 (ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA) - a finite volume solver, COMSOL 4.2a (COMSOL Multiphysics Inc., Burlington, MA) - a finite element solver, and an in-house finite difference cardiovascular flow solver implementing an unsteady artificial compressibility numerical method, each employing second-order spatio-temporal discretization schemes, under assumptions of incompressible, Newtonian fluid domain with rigid, impermeable walls. The cardiac cycle-average pressure drop across the CoA modeled relative to the given pressure data proximal to the CoA is reported and was found to vary significantly between rest and stress conditions. A mean pressure gradient of 2.79 mmHg was observed for the rest case as compared to 17.73 mmHg for the stress case. There was an inter-solver variability of 16.9% in reported mean pressure gradient under rest conditions and 23.71% in reported mean pressure gradient under stress conditions. In order to investigate the effects of the rigid wall assumption, additional simulations were conducted using a 3-element windkessel model implemented at the descending aorta, using FLUENT. Further, to investigate the appropriateness of the inviscid flow assumption in a mild CoA, CFD pressure gradients were also compared results of a simple Bernoulli-based formula, used clinically, using just the peak blood flow velocity measurements (in m/s) obtained distal to the aortic coarctation from CFD. Helicity isocontours were used as a visual metric to characterize pathological hemodynamics in the CoA.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mullen, M.J.: Coarctation of the aorta in adults: do we need surgeons? Heart 89, 3–5 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Habib, W.K., Nanson, E.M.: The causes of hypertension in coarctation of the aorta. Annals of Surgery 168, 771–778 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garne, E., Stoll, C., Clementi, M., Euroscan, G.: Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart diseases by ultrasound: experience from 20 European registries. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 17, 386–391 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Russo, V., Renzulli, M., La Palombara, C., Fattori, R.: Congenital diseases of the thoracic aorta. Role of MRI and MRA. European Radiology 16, 676–684 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valverde, I., Staicu, C., Grotenhuis, H., Marzo, A., Rhode, K., Shi, Y., Brown, A.G., Tzifa, A., Hussain, T., Greil, G., Lawford, P., Razavi, R., Hose, R., Beerbaum, P.: Predicting hemodynamics in native and residual coarctation: preliminary results of a Rigid-Wall Computational-Fluid-Dynamics model (RW-CFD) validated against clinically invasive pressure measures at rest and during pharmacological stress. Poster Presentation at SCMR/Euro CMR Joint Scientific Sessions, February 3-6 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varga, A., Kraft, G., Lakatos, F., Bigi, R., Paya, R., Picano, E.: Complications during pharmacological stress echocardiography: a video-case series. Cardiovascular Ultrasound 3, 25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mertes, H., Sawada, S.G., Ryan, T., Segar, D.S., Kovacs, R., Foltz, J., Feigenbaum, H.: Symptoms, adverse effects, and complications associated with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Experience in 1118 patients. Circulation 88, 15–19 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menon, P.G., Pekkan, K., Madan, S.: Quantitative Hemodynamic Evaluation in Children with Coarctation of Aorta: Phase Contrast Cardiovascular MRI versus Computational Fluid Dynamics. In: Camara, O., Mansi, T., Pop, M., Rhode, K., Sermesant, M., Young, A. (eds.) STACOM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7746, pp. 9–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eli Konen, N.M., Provost, Y., McLaughlin, P.R., Crossin, J., Paul, N.S.: Coarctation of the Aorta Before and After Correction: The Role of Cardiovascular MRI. American Journal of Roentgenology 182, 1333–1339 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rannacher, R.: Finite Element Methods for the Incompressible Navier-S tokes Equations. Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 191–293 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chung, T.J.: Transitions and interactions of inviscid/viscous, compressible/incompressible and laminar/turbulent flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 31 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wesseling, P., S.A., Vankan, J., Oosterlee, C. W., Kassels, C. G.M.: Finite discretization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in general coordinates on staggered grids. Presented at the 4th International Symposium on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Davis, CA (September 1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neal, T., Frink, S.Z.P.: Tetrahedral finite-volume solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations on complex configurations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 31, 175-187Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menon, P.G., Yoshida, M., Pekkan, K.: Presurgical evaluation of fontan connection options for patients with apicocaval juxtaposition using computational fluid dynamics. Artificial organs 37, E1–E8 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshida, M., Menon, P.G., Chrysostomou, C., Pekkan, K., Wearden, P.D., Oshima, Y., Okita, Y., Morell, V.O.: Total cavopulmonary connection in patients with apicocaval juxtaposition: optimal conduit route using preoperative angiogram and flow simulation. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 44, e46–e52 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westerhof, N., Lankhaar, J.W., Westerhof, B.E.: The arterial Windkessel. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 47, 131–141 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cappello, A., Gnudi, G., Lamberti, C.: Identification of the three-element windkessel model incorporating a pressure-dependent compliance. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 23, 164–177 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reymond, P., Crosetto, P., Deparis, S., Quarteroni, A., Stergiopulos, N.: Physiological simulation of blood flow in the aorta: Comparison of hemodynamic indices as predicted by 3-D FSI, 3-D rigid wall and 1-D models. Medical Engineering & Physics 35, 784–791 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priti G. Albal
    • 1
    • 4
  • Tyson A. Montidoro
    • 2
  • Onur Dur
    • 3
  • Prahlad G. Menon
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Joint Institute of Engineering (JIE)Yat-sen University - Carnegie Mellon University (SYSU-CMU)PittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Thoratec CorporationPleasantonUSA
  4. 4.QuantMD LLCPittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Shunde International Joint Research InstituteSYSU-CMUGuangdongChina

Personalised recommendations