4.5 Article

Is MRI-Based CFD Able to Improve Clinical Treatment of Coarctations of Aorta?

Journal

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 168-176

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-014-1116-3

Keywords

Aortic coarctation; Computational fluid dynamics; Magnetic resonance imaging; Virtual treatment; Wall shear stress; Pressure drop

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pressure drop associated with coarctation of the aorta (CoA) can be successfully treated surgically or by stent placement. However, a decreased life expectancy associated with altered aortic hemodynamics was found in long-term studies. Image-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is intended to support particular diagnoses, to help in choosing between treatment options, and to improve performance of treatment procedures. This study aimed to prove the ability of CFD to improve aortic hemodynamics in CoA patients. In 13 patients (6 males, 7 females; mean age 25 +/- 14 years), we compared pre-and post-treatment peak systole hemodynamics [pressure drops and wall shear stress (WSS)] vs. virtual treatment as proposed by biomedical engineers. Anatomy and flow data for CFD were based on MRI and angiography. Segmentation, geometry reconstruction and virtual treatment geometry were performed using the software ZIBAmira, whereas peak systole flow conditions were simulated with the software ANSYS (R) Fluent (R). Virtual treatment significantly reduced pressure drop compared to post-treatment values by a mean of 2.8 +/- 3.15 mmHg, which significantly reduced mean WSS by 3.8 Pa. Thus, CFD has the potential to improve post-treatment hemodynamics associated with poor long-term prognosis of patients with coarctation of the aorta. MRI-based CFD has a huge potential to allow the slight reduction of post-treatment pressure drop, which causes significant improvement (reduction) of the WSS at the stenosis segment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available