Back

Cardiac hemodynamics computational modeling including chordae tendineae, papillaries, and valves dynamics

Crispino, A.; Bennati, L.; Vergara, C.

2024-05-23 bioengineering
10.1101/2024.05.21.595150 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In the context of dynamic image-based computational fluid dynamics (DIB-CFD) modeling of cardiac system, the role of sub-valvular apparatus (chordae tendineae and papillary muscles) and the effects of different mitral valve (MV) opening/closure dynamics, have not been systemically determined. To provide a partial filling of this gap, in this study we performed DIB-CFD numerical experiments in the left ventricle, left atrium and aortic root, with the aim of highlighting the influence on the numerical results of two specific modeling scenarios: i) the presence of the sub-valvular apparatus, consisting of chordae tendineae and papillary muscles; ii) different MV dynamics models accounting for different use of leaflet reconstruction from imaging. This is performed for one healthy and one MV regurgitant subjects. Specifically, a systolic wall motion is reconstructed from time-resolved Cine-MRI images and imposed as boundary condition for the CFD numerical simulation. Analyzing the numerical results, we found that sub-valvular apparatus do not affect the global fluid dynamics quantities, although it creates local variations, such as the developing of vortexes or flow disturbances, which lead to different stress distributions on cardiac structures. Moreover, different MV dynamics are considered starting from Cine-MRI MV segmentation at different temporal configurations, and then they are compared and managed numerically through a resistive approach. The obtained results highlight the importance of including a sophisticated diastolic model of MV dynamics, which accounts for MV geometries during diastasis and A-wave, in terms of describing the disturbed flow and ventricular turbulence. Statements and DeclarationsThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
6
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
7
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
12
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
13
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
15
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
16
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
17
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
18
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.5%
20
Frontiers in Physics
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%