4.6 Article

Cell-resolved blood flow simulations of saccular aneurysms: effects of pulsatility and aspect ratio

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0485

关键词

red blood cells; platelets; aneurysm; pulsatile flow; blood rheology; transport phenomena

资金

  1. European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [675451]
  2. NWO Exacte Wetenschappen (Physical Sciences)
  3. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Science Research, NWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the effect of pulsatile flow on the transport of red blood cells (RBCs) and platelets into aneurysm geometries with varying dome-to-neck aspect ratios (AR). We use a validated two-dimensional lattice Boltzmann model for blood plasma with a discrete element method for both RBCs and platelets coupled by the immersed boundary method. Flow velocities and vessel diameters were matched with measurements of cerebral perforating arteries and flow was driven by a synthetic heartbeat curve typical for such vessel sizes. We observe a flow regime change as the aspect ratio increases from a momentum-driven regime in the small aspect ratio to a shear-driven regime In the larger aspect ratios. In the small aspect ratio case, we see the development of a re-circulation zone that exhibits a layering of high (greater than or equal to 7 s) and low (less than 7 s) residence cells. In the shear-driven regime, we see high and low residence cells well mixed, with an increasing = population of cells that are trapped inside the aneurysm as the aspect ratio increases. In all cases, we observe aneurysms that are platelet-rich and red 'blood cell-poor when compared with their respective parental vessel populations. Pulsatility also plays a role in the small aspect ratio as we observe a smaller population of older trapped cells along the aneurysm wall in the pulsatile case when compared with a steady flow case. Pulsatility does not F have a significant effect in shear-driven regime aspect ratios.

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

4.6
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