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 medRxiv
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
3
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
5
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.2%
7
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.1%
9
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.2%
10
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.1%
12
The American Journal of Cardiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
14
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
15
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
17
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
19
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
36 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
20
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Physiological Measurement
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%