4.5 Article

Assessment of turbulent blood flow and wall shear stress in aortic coarctation using image-based simulations

期刊

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING ONLINE
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12938-021-00921-4

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; Computational fluid dynamics; Turbulence; Aorta; Coarctation; Phantom

资金

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation, The Netherlands [CVON2018-08-RADAR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed turbulent flows using MRI and CFD, finding good agreement in velocity measurements between the two methods. While absolute values of WSS differed, normalized WSS showed similar distributions between MRI and CFD. The combined MRI/CFD method is recommended for future analysis and evaluation of local flow patterns and WSS in the aorta.
In this study, we analyzed turbulent flows through a phantom (a 180 degrees bend with narrowing) at peak systole and a patient-specific coarctation of the aorta (CoA), with a pulsating flow, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). For MRI, a 4D-flow MRI is performed using a 3T scanner. For CFD, the standard k - epsilon, shear stress transport k - omega, and Reynolds stress (RSM) models are applied. A good agreement between measured and simulated velocity is obtained for the phantom, especially for CFD with RSM. The wall shear stress (WSS) shows significant differences between CFD and MRI in absolute values, due to the limited near-wall resolution of MRI. However, normalized WSS shows qualitatively very similar distributions of the local values between MRI and CFD. Finally, a direct comparison between in vivo 4D-flow MRI and CFD with the RSM turbulence model is performed in the CoA. MRI can properly identify regions with locally elevated or suppressed WSS. If the exact values of the WSS are necessary, CFD is the preferred method. For future applications, we recommend the use of the combined MRI/CFD method for analysis and evaluation of the local flow patterns and WSS in the aorta.

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

4.5
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