4.5 Article

Evaluation of shear stress accumulation on blood components in normal and dysfunctional bileaflet mechanical heart valves using smoothed particle hydrodynamics

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 45, 期 15, 页码 2637-2644

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.08.009

关键词

Fully Lagrangian meshfree method; Smoothed particle hydrodynamics; Bileaflet mechanical heart valve; Hemodynamics; Shear stress accumulation; Blood components damage

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating shear induced hemodynamic complications is one of the major concerns in design of the mechanical heart valves (MHVs). The monitoring of these events relies on both numerical simulations and experimental measurements. Currently, numerical approaches are mainly based on a combined Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. A more straightforward evaluation can be based on the Lagrangian analysis of the whole blood. As a consequence, Lagrangian meshfree methods are more adapted to such evaluation. In this study, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), a fully meshfree particle method originated to simulate compressible astrophysical flows, is applied to study the flow through a normal and a dysfunctional bileaflet mechanical heart valves (BMHVs). The SPH results are compared with the reference data. The accumulation of shear stress patterns on blood components illustrates the important role played by non-physiological flow patterns and mainly vortical structures in this issue. The statistical distribution of particles with respect to shear stress loading history provides important information regarding the relative number of blood components that can be damaged. This can be used as a measure of the response of blood components to the presence of the valve implant or any implantable medical device. This work presents the first attempt to simulate pulsatile flow through BMHVs using SPH method. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据