4.5 Article

In VitroAssessment of Flow Variability in an Intracranial Aneurysm Model Using 4D Flow MRI and Tomographic PIV

Journal

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 48, Issue 10, Pages 2484-2493

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02543-8

Keywords

Intracranial aneurysm; Patient-specific; Experimental validation; Particle image velocimetry; Hemodynamics; Phase-contrast MRI; Wall shear stress

Funding

  1. K12 Career Development Award [K12DK100022]
  2. American Heart Association [14SDG19690010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aneurysm rupture has been suggested to be related to aneurysm geometry, morphology, and complex flow activity; therefore, understanding aneurysm-specific hemodynamics is crucial. 4D Flow MRI has been shown to be a feasible tool for assessing hemodynamics in intracranial aneurysms with high spatial resolution. However, it requires averaging over multiple heartbeats and cannot account for cycle-to-cycle hemodynamics variations. This study aimed to assess cycle-to-cycle flow dynamics variations in a patient-specific intracranial aneurysm model using tomographic particle image velocimetry (tomo-PIV) at a high image rate under pulsatile flow conditions. Time-resolved and time-averaged velocity flow fields within the aneurysm sac and estimations of wall shear stress (WSS) were compared with those from 4D Flow MRI. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference between cardiac cycles (pvalue < 0.0001); however, differences were not significant after PIV temporal and spatial resolution was matched to that of MRI (pvalue 0.9727). This comparison showed the spatial resolution to be the main contributor to assess cycle-to-cycle variability. Furthermore, the comparison with 4D Flow MRI between velocity components, streamlines, and estimated WSS showed good qualitative and quantitative agreement. This study showed the feasibility of patient-specificin-vitroexperiments using tomo-PIV to assess 4D Flow MRI with high repeatability in the measurements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available