Back

Hemodynamics After Fontan Procedure are Determined by Patient Characteristics and Anastomosis Placement Not Graft Selection: a Patient-Specific Multiscale Computational Study

Kung, E.; Baker, C.; Corsini, C.; Baretta, A.; Biglino, G.; Arbia, G.; Pant, S.; Marsden, A.; Taylor, A.; Quail, M.; Vignon-Clementel, I. E.; Pennati, G.; Migliavacca, F.; Schievano, S.; Hlavacek, A.; Dorfman, A. L.; Hsia, T.-Y.; Figliola, R.; Modeling of Congenital Hearts Alliance (MOCHA)+ Investigators,

2021-10-04 surgery
10.1101/2021.10.03.21264033 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesPatient-specific multiscale modeling simulates virtual surgeries of the Fontan procedure using three different graft options. Predictive modeling details post-operative outcomes that can help inform clinical decision support. MethodsSix patients underwent preoperative cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and catheterization. Virtual surgery is carried out for each patient to test the resulting hemodynamics of three Fontan graft options: ECC, 9mm Y-graft, and 12mm Y-graft. Results1) one-way ANOVA p>0.998 in all systemic pressures and flows between graft options, 2) p=0.706 for hepatic flow distribution between graft options, 3) local power loss differences do not affect the systemic circulation, 4) anastomosis positioning modification of the same Y-graft in the same patient changed left PA hepatic distribution from 0.66 to 0.49 ConclusionsSystemic pressures and blood flow after the Fontan procedure are not affected by graft selection but are well influenced by patient pulmonary vascular impedance. The hepatic distribution can be affected by anastomosis placement. Ultra-mini abstractWe present the first case series of patient-specific multiscale modeling of the Fontan procedure. Despite noticeable local power loss differences, graft selection does not affect systemic pressure and flow rates or other clinically relevant quantities. Anastomosis placement can affect hepatic distribution.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.2%
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.6%
4
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.8%
6
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 39%
2.5%
8
Transfusion
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
9
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.0%
12
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
13
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
14
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
15
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
17
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Neurophotonics
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
19
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
20
Pulmonary Circulation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
21
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%