4.2 Article

Subject-specific computational simulation of left ventricular flow based on magnetic resonance imaging

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM310

关键词

computational fluid dynamics; magnetic resonance imaging; left ventricle; blood flow simulation; patient specific modelling

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation [QL,FS/2001002] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/T06735/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed investigation of left ventricle (LV) flow patterns could improve our understanding of the function of the heart and provide further insight into the mechanisms of heart failure. This study presents patient-specific modelling with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to investigate LV blood flow patterns in normal subjects. In the study, the prescribed LV wall movements based on the MRI measurements drove the blood flow in and out of the LV in computational fluid dynamics simulation. For the six subjects studied, the simulated LV flow swirls towards the aortic valve and is ejected into the ascending aorta with a vertical flow pattern that follows the left-hand rule. In diastole, the inflow adopts a reasonably straight route (with no significant secondary flow) towards the apex in the rapid filling phase with slight variations in the jet direction between different cases. When the jet reaches about two thirds of the distance from the inflow plane to the apex, the blood flow starts to change direction and swirls towards the apex. In the more slowly filling phase, a centrally located jet is evident with vortices located on both sides of the jet on an anterior-posterior plane that passes through the mitral and aortic valves. In the inferior-superior plane, a main vortex appears for most of the cases in which an anticlockwise vortex appears for three cases and a clockwise vortex occurs for one case. The simulated flow patterns agree well qualitatively with MRI-measured flow fields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据