In Vitro Validation of Finite-Element Model of AAA Hemodynamics Incorporating Realistic Outlet Boundary Conditions

Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering (Impact Factor: 1.78). 04/2011; 133(4):041003. DOI: 10.1115/1.4003526
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this study is to validate numerical simulations of flow and pressure in an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PCMRI) and an in vitro phantom under physiological flow and pressure conditions. We constructed a two-outlet physical flow phantom based on patient imaging data of an AAA and developed a physical Windkessel model to use as outlet boundary conditions. We then acquired PCMRI data in the phantom while it operated under conditions mimicking a resting and a light exercise physiological state. Next, we performed in silico numerical simulations and compared experimentally measured velocities, flows, and pressures in the in vitro phantom to those computed in the in silico simulations. There was a high degree of agreement in all of the pressure and flow waveform shapes and magnitudes between the experimental measurements and simulated results. The average pressures and flow split difference between experiment and simulation were all within 2%. Velocity patterns showed good agreement between experimental measurements and simulated results, especially in the case of whole-cycle averaged comparisons. We demonstrated methods to perform in vitro phantom experiments with physiological flows and pressures, showing good agreement between numerically simulated and experimentally measured velocity fields and pressure waveforms in a complex patient-specific AAA geometry.

Download full-text


Available from: Ethan Kung, Oct 04, 2015
60 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has long been recognized that the forces and stresses produced by the blood flow on the walls of the cardiovascular system are central to the development of different cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, up to now, the reason why arterial diseases occur at preferential sites is still not fully understood. This paper reviews the progress, made largely within the last decade, towards the use of 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models to simulate the blood flow dynamics and its interaction with the arterial wall within the human thoracic aorta (TA). We describe the technical aspects of model building, review methods to create anatomic and physiologic models, obtain material properties, assign boundary conditions, solve the equations governing blood flow, and describe the assumptions used in running the simulations. Detailed comparative information is provided in tabular format about the model setup, simulation results, and a summary of the major insights and contributions of each TA article reviewed. Several syntheses are given that summarize the research carried out by influential research groups, review important findings, discuss the methods employed, limitations, and opportunities for further research. We hope that this review will stimulate computational research that will contribute to the continued improvement of cardiovascular health through a strong interaction and cooperation between engineers and clinicians.
    06/2013; 4(2). DOI:10.1007/s13239-013-0146-6
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to validate numerical simulations of flow and pressure incorporating deformable walls using in vitro flow phantoms under physiological flow and pressure conditions. We constructed two deformable flow phantoms mimicking a normal and a restricted thoracic aorta, and used a Windkessel model at the outlet boundary. We acquired flow and pressure data in the phantom while it operated under physiological conditions. Next, in silico numerical simulations were performed, and velocities, flows, and pressures in the in silico simulations were compared to those measured in the in vitro phantoms. The experimental measurements and simulated results of pressure and flow waveform shapes and magnitudes compared favorably at all of the different measurement locations in the two deformable phantoms. The average difference between measured and simulated flow and pressure was approximately 3.5 cc/s (13% of mean) and 1.5 mmHg (1.8% of mean), respectively. Velocity patterns also showed good qualitative agreement between experiment and simulation especially in regions with less complex flow patterns. We demonstrated the capabilities of numerical simulations incorporating deformable walls to capture both the vessel wall motion and wave propagation by accurately predicting the changes in the flow and pressure waveforms at various locations down the length of the deformable flow phantoms.
    Annals of Biomedical Engineering 03/2011; 39(7):1947-60. DOI:10.1007/s10439-011-0284-7 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper compares numerical predictions of turbulence intensity with in vivo measurement. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was carried out on a 60-year-old female with a restenosed aortic coarctation. Time-resolved three-directional phase-contrast (PC) MRI data was acquired to enable turbulence intensity estimation. A contrast-enhanced MR angiography (MRA) and a time-resolved 2D PCMRI measurement were also performed to acquire data needed to perform subsequent image-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. A 3D model of the aortic coarctation and surrounding vasculature was constructed from the MRA data, and physiologic boundary conditions were modeled to match 2D PCMRI and pressure pulse measurements. Blood flow velocity data was subsequently obtained by numerical simulation. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) was computed from the resulting CFD data. Results indicate relative agreement (error ≈10%) between the in vivo measurements and the CFD predictions of TKE. The discrepancies in modeled vs. measured TKE values were within expectations due to modeling and measurement errors.
    Annals of Biomedical Engineering 10/2011; 40(4):860-70. DOI:10.1007/s10439-011-0447-6 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more