4.7 Article

On the impact of vessel wall stiffness on quantitative flow dynamics in a synthetic model of the thoracic aorta

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86174-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. DAAD
  2. NIH [R01 HL131823]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of aortic wall stiffness on hemodynamic characteristics using MRI technology and aortic models. The results showed that stiffer aortic models led to higher blood pressure, changes in velocity patterns, and increased PWV, while lower temporal resolution affected the estimation of peak velocity and PWV.
Aortic wall stiffening is a predictive marker for morbidity in hypertensive patients. Arterial pulse wave velocity (PWV) correlates with the level of stiffness and can be derived using non-invasive 4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The objectives of this study were twofold: to develop subject-specific thoracic aorta models embedded into an MRI-compatible flow circuit operating under controlled physiological conditions; and to evaluate how a range of aortic wall stiffness impacts 4D-flow-based quantification of hemodynamics, particularly PWV. Three aorta models were 3D-printed using a novel photopolymer material at two compliant and one nearly rigid stiffnesses and characterized via tensile testing. Luminal pressure and 4D-flow MRI data were acquired for each model and cross-sectional net flow, peak velocities, and PWV were measured. In addition, the confounding effect of temporal resolution on all metrics was evaluated. Stiffer models resulted in increased systolic pressures (112, 116, and 133 mmHg), variations in velocity patterns, and increased peak velocities, peak flow rate, and PWV (5.8-7.3 m/s). Lower temporal resolution (20 ms down to 62.5 ms per image frame) impacted estimates of peak velocity and PWV (7.31 down to 4.77 m/s). Using compliant aorta models is essential to produce realistic flow dynamics and conditions that recapitulated in vivo hemodynamics.

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

4.7
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