Aortic haemodynamics and wall stress analysis following arch aneurysm repair using a single-branched endograft

IntroductionThoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of the arch is challenging given its complex geometry and the involvement of supra-aortic arteries. Different branched endografts have been designed for use in this region, but their haemodynamic performance and the risk for post-intervention complications are not yet clear. This study aims to examine aortic haemodynamics and biomechanical conditions following TVAR treatment of an aortic arch aneurysm with a two-component single-branched endograft. MethodsComputational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis were applied to a patient-specific case at different stages: pre-intervention, post-intervention and follow-up. Physiologically accurate boundary conditions were used based on available clinical information. ResultsComputational results obtained from the post-intervention model confirmed technical success of the procedure in restoring normal flow to the arch. Simulations of the follow-up model, where boundary conditions were modified to reflect change in supra-aortic vessel perfusion observed on the follow-up scan, predicted normal flow patterns but high levels of wall stress (up to 1.3M MPa) and increased displacement forces in regions at risk of compromising device stability. This might have contributed to the suspected endoleaks or device migration identified at the final follow up. DiscussionOur study demonstrated that detailed haemodynamic and biomechanical analysis can help identify possible causes for post-TEVAR complications in a patient-specific setting. Further refinement and validation of the computational workflow will allow personalised assessment to aid in surgical planning and clinical decision making.

Automated summary

This study aims to assess the efficacy and risks of TEVAR treatment for aortic arch aneurysms using a two-component single-branched endograft. Computational simulations showed that the procedure successfully restored normal flow to the arch, but follow-up models predicted high levels of wall stress and displacement forces, which may have contributed to post-intervention complications.