Back

Non-invasive estimation of pressure drop across aortic coarctations: validation of 0D and 3D computational models with in vivo measurements

Nair, P.; Pfaller, M. R.; Dual, S. A.; McElhinney, D. B.; Ennis, D. B.; Marsden, A. L.

2023-09-06 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.09.05.23295066
Show abstract

PurposeBlood pressure gradient ({Delta}P) across an aortic coarctation (CoA) is an important measurement to diagnose CoA severity and gauge treatment efficacy. Invasive cardiac catheterization is currently the gold-standard method for measuring blood pressure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of{Delta} P estimates derived non-invasively using patient-specific 0D and 3D deformable wall simulations. MethodsMedical imaging and routine clinical measurements were used to create patient-specific models of patients with CoA (N=17). 0D simulations were performed first and used to tune boundary conditions and initialize 3D simulations.{Delta} P across the CoA estimated using both 0D and 3D simulations were compared to invasive catheter-based pressure measurements for validation. ResultsThe 0D simulations were extremely efficient ([~]15 secs computation time) compared to 3D simulations ([~]30 hrs computation time on a cluster). However, the 0D{Delta} P estimates, unsurprisingly, had larger mean errors when compared to catheterization than 3D estimates (12.1 {+/-} 9.9 mmHg vs 5.3 {+/-} 5.4 mmHg). In particular, the 0D model performance degraded in cases where the CoA was adjacent to a bifurcation. The 0D model classified patients with severe CoA requiring intervention (defined as{Delta} P[≥] 20 mmHg) with 76% accuracy and 3D simulations improved this to 88%. ConclusionOverall, a combined approach, using 0D models to efficiently tune and launch 3D models, offers the best combination of speed and accuracy for non-invasive classification of CoA severity.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 0.1%
10.2%
2
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 16%
10.2%
3
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 0.3%
8.3%
4
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
based on 33 papers
Top 2%
7.6%
5
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
7.6%
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
based on 92 papers
Top 4%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 4%
3.0%
8
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
based on 15 papers
Top 0.9%
2.8%
9
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 80%
2.8%
10
The American Journal of Cardiology
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
11
Hypertension
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
12
Heart Rhythm
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
13
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 8%
2.3%
14
Circulation
based on 37 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
15
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 7%
1.3%
16
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 13%
1.3%
17
Open Heart
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
18
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
based on 30 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
19
IEEE Access
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
20
European Heart Journal
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
21
Heart
based on 10 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Sensors
based on 18 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
23
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
25
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 30%
0.8%
26
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
27
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
28
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
29
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
based on 10 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
30
International Journal of Cardiology
based on 13 papers
Top 4%
0.7%