Location-Specific Comparison Between a 3D In-Stent Restenosis Model and Micro-CT and Histology Data from Porcine In Vivo Experiments.
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary
/ adverse effects
Animals
Computer Simulation
Coronary Restenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Vessels
/ diagnostic imaging
Disease Models, Animal
Extracellular Matrix
/ pathology
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Models, Cardiovascular
Myocytes, Smooth Muscle
/ pathology
Neointima
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
Stents
Sus scrofa
Time Factors
X-Ray Microtomography
In silico modelling
Model validation
Multiscale modelling
Restenosis
Journal
Cardiovascular engineering and technology
ISSN: 1869-4098
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Eng Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101531846
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
26
03
2019
accepted:
07
09
2019
pubmed:
19
9
2019
medline:
12
5
2020
entrez:
19
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Coronary artery restenosis is an important side effect of percutaneous coronary intervention. Computational models can be used to better understand this process. We report on an approach for validation of an in silico 3D model of in-stent restenosis in porcine coronary arteries and illustrate this approach by comparing the modelling results to in vivo data for 14 and 28 days post-stenting. This multiscale model includes single-scale models for stent deployment, blood flow and tissue growth in the stented vessel, including smooth muscle cell (SMC) proliferation and extracellular matrix (ECM) production. The validation procedure uses data from porcine in vivo experiments, by simulating stent deployment using stent geometry obtained from micro computed tomography (micro-CT) of the stented vessel and directly comparing the simulation results of neointimal growth to histological sections taken at the same locations. Metrics for comparison are per-strut neointimal thickness and per-section neointimal area. The neointimal area predicted by the model demonstrates a good agreement with the detailed experimental data. For 14 days post-stenting the relative neointimal area, averaged over all vessel sections considered, was 20 ± 3% in vivo and 22 ± 4% in silico. For 28 days, the area was 42 ± 3% in vivo and 41 ± 3% in silico. The approach presented here provides a very detailed, location-specific, validation methodology for in silico restenosis models. The model was able to closely match both histology datasets with a single set of parameters. Good agreement was obtained for both the overall amount of neointima produced and the local distribution. It should be noted that including vessel curvature and ECM production in the model was paramount to obtain a good agreement with the experimental data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery restenosis is an important side effect of percutaneous coronary intervention. Computational models can be used to better understand this process. We report on an approach for validation of an in silico 3D model of in-stent restenosis in porcine coronary arteries and illustrate this approach by comparing the modelling results to in vivo data for 14 and 28 days post-stenting.
METHODS
This multiscale model includes single-scale models for stent deployment, blood flow and tissue growth in the stented vessel, including smooth muscle cell (SMC) proliferation and extracellular matrix (ECM) production. The validation procedure uses data from porcine in vivo experiments, by simulating stent deployment using stent geometry obtained from micro computed tomography (micro-CT) of the stented vessel and directly comparing the simulation results of neointimal growth to histological sections taken at the same locations.
RESULTS
Metrics for comparison are per-strut neointimal thickness and per-section neointimal area. The neointimal area predicted by the model demonstrates a good agreement with the detailed experimental data. For 14 days post-stenting the relative neointimal area, averaged over all vessel sections considered, was 20 ± 3% in vivo and 22 ± 4% in silico. For 28 days, the area was 42 ± 3% in vivo and 41 ± 3% in silico.
CONCLUSIONS
The approach presented here provides a very detailed, location-specific, validation methodology for in silico restenosis models. The model was able to closely match both histology datasets with a single set of parameters. Good agreement was obtained for both the overall amount of neointima produced and the local distribution. It should be noted that including vessel curvature and ECM production in the model was paramount to obtain a good agreement with the experimental data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31531821
doi: 10.1007/s13239-019-00431-4
pii: 10.1007/s13239-019-00431-4
pmc: PMC6863796
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
568-582Références
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Mar 12;11(94):20140022
pubmed: 24621816
Circ J. 2011;75(6):1287-96
pubmed: 21532177
Cardiovasc Res. 2013 Jul 15;99(2):353-63
pubmed: 23667187
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Mar;7(3):315-24
pubmed: 24529931
Circ Res. 1999 Mar 5;84(4):378-83
pubmed: 10066671
Front Physiol. 2017 May 23;8:284
pubmed: 28588498
J Histochem Cytochem. 2005 Jan;53(1):131-40
pubmed: 15637346
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005 May;288(5):H2465-75
pubmed: 15653759
Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018 Dec;9(4):761-774
pubmed: 30136082
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991 Feb;17(2):442-8
pubmed: 1991902
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Nov 09;4(11):null
pubmed: 26553215
Circulation. 2004 Aug 24;110(8):940-7
pubmed: 15302784
J Biomech. 2013 Mar 15;46(5):918-24
pubmed: 23398970
Int J Cardiol. 1996 Jan;53(1):71-80
pubmed: 8776280
J R Soc Interface. 2015 Jul 6;12(108):20150358
pubmed: 26063828
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Oct 11;9(2):79-90
pubmed: 21989052
Br Med Bull. 2013;106:193-211
pubmed: 23532779
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Sep 14;5(9):
pubmed: 27628570
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018 Feb;17(1):87-101
pubmed: 28823079
J Clin Invest. 1994 Feb;93(2):820-8
pubmed: 8113414
Ann Biomed Eng. 2011 Oct;39(10):2615-26
pubmed: 21785884
Circ Res. 2004 May 14;94(9):1158-67
pubmed: 15142969
EuroIntervention. 2017 Aug 25;13(6):706-716
pubmed: 28844032
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Dec 15;104(12):1660-7
pubmed: 19962471
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014;17(8):813-28
pubmed: 22967148
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016 Nov;13(11):631
pubmed: 27629515
BMJ. 2015 Nov 04;351:h5392
pubmed: 26537292
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 13;8(6):e66138
pubmed: 23785479
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2013 Aug;12(4):671-83
pubmed: 22961302
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Feb 1;79(2):231-42
pubmed: 21834062
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2004 Feb;286(2):H731-41
pubmed: 14527936
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018 Dec;17(6):1757-1769
pubmed: 30058051
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005 Nov;289(5):H2048-58
pubmed: 16006541
J Biol Chem. 2001 Apr 27;276(17):13847-51
pubmed: 11278699
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013 Nov;10(11):635-47
pubmed: 24042217
J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2018 Apr;11(2):156-172
pubmed: 29282628
Lab Invest. 2005 Jan;85(1):9-23
pubmed: 15568038
Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 Feb;44(2):453-65
pubmed: 26259974
Am J Pathol. 1997 Oct;151(4):963-73
pubmed: 9327730
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Sep 13;9(1):53-62
pubmed: 21912414
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2013 Dec;29(12):1373-87
pubmed: 23996860
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2012 Mar;11(3-4):363-77
pubmed: 21626394
Int J Artif Organs. 2014 Oct;37(10):786-800
pubmed: 25044386
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2019 Feb;22(2):217-228
pubmed: 30596516
Int J Card Imaging. 2000 Dec;16(6):413-27
pubmed: 11482706
Coron Artery Dis. 2000 May;11(3):273-7
pubmed: 10832562
Brief Bioinform. 2016 Jul;17(4):562-75
pubmed: 26438419
Heart. 1998 Nov;80(5):509-16
pubmed: 9930055
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 24;8(10):1281-96
pubmed: 26315731
Interface Focus. 2011 Jun 6;1(3):365-73
pubmed: 22670206