Comparisons of simulation results between passive and active fluid structure interaction models for left ventricle in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.
Active computational model
Fluid–structure interactions
Left ventricle
Mitral valve
Passive computational model
Systolic anterior motion
Journal
Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jan 2021
12 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
06
08
2020
accepted:
10
12
2020
entrez:
13
1
2021
pubmed:
14
1
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-specific active fluid-structure interactions (FSI) model is a useful approach to non-invasively investigate the hemodynamics in the heart. However, it takes a lot of effort to obtain the proper external force boundary conditions for active models, which heavily restrained the time-sensitive clinical applications of active computational models. The simulation results of 12 passive FSI models based on 6 patients' pre-operative and post-operative CT images were compared with corresponding active models to investigate the differences in hemodynamics and cardiac mechanics between these models. In comparing the passive and active models, it was found that there was no significant difference in pressure difference and shear stress on mitral valve leaflet (MVL) at the pre-SAM time point, but a significant difference was found in wall stress on the inner boundary of left ventricle (endocardium). It was also found that pressure difference on the coapted MVL and the shear stress on MVL were significantly decreased after successful surgery in both active and passive models. Our results suggested that the passive models may provide good approximated hemodynamic results at 5% RR interval, which is crucial for analyzing the initiation of systolic anterior motion (SAM). Comparing to active models, the passive models decrease the complexity of the modeling construction and the difficulty of convergence significantly. These findings suggest that, with proper boundary conditions and sufficient clinical data, the passive computational model may be a good substitution model for the active model to perform hemodynamic analysis of the initiation of SAM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-specific active fluid-structure interactions (FSI) model is a useful approach to non-invasively investigate the hemodynamics in the heart. However, it takes a lot of effort to obtain the proper external force boundary conditions for active models, which heavily restrained the time-sensitive clinical applications of active computational models.
METHODS
METHODS
The simulation results of 12 passive FSI models based on 6 patients' pre-operative and post-operative CT images were compared with corresponding active models to investigate the differences in hemodynamics and cardiac mechanics between these models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In comparing the passive and active models, it was found that there was no significant difference in pressure difference and shear stress on mitral valve leaflet (MVL) at the pre-SAM time point, but a significant difference was found in wall stress on the inner boundary of left ventricle (endocardium). It was also found that pressure difference on the coapted MVL and the shear stress on MVL were significantly decreased after successful surgery in both active and passive models.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested that the passive models may provide good approximated hemodynamic results at 5% RR interval, which is crucial for analyzing the initiation of systolic anterior motion (SAM). Comparing to active models, the passive models decrease the complexity of the modeling construction and the difficulty of convergence significantly. These findings suggest that, with proper boundary conditions and sufficient clinical data, the passive computational model may be a good substitution model for the active model to perform hemodynamic analysis of the initiation of SAM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33436013
doi: 10.1186/s12938-020-00838-4
pii: 10.1186/s12938-020-00838-4
pmc: PMC7805207
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Subventions
Organisme : Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province
ID : 2017J01009
Organisme : Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (CN)
ID : 20720180004
Organisme : National Natural Sciences Foundation of China
ID : 11672001
Organisme : National Natural Sciences Foundation of China
ID : 11972117
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL089269
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 82000472
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 11671335
Références
J Comput Phys. 2013 Jul 1;244:4-21
pubmed: 23729839
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2018 Sep;56(9):1615-1631
pubmed: 29479659
Histopathology. 1995 Jun;26(6):493-500
pubmed: 7665141
Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2019 Jan;35(1):e3155
pubmed: 30253447
Am J Physiol. 1997 May;272(5 Pt 2):H2299-305
pubmed: 9176298
J Biomech. 2017 Feb 8;52:95-105
pubmed: 28065473
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003 Oct;14(10 Suppl):S196-202
pubmed: 14760924
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;5:147-77
pubmed: 14527312
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2014 Jul 15;117(2):142-52
pubmed: 24876359
Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015 Jan;25(1):54-64
pubmed: 25446045
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:6523-6
pubmed: 26737787
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2014 Jun;52(6):557-66
pubmed: 24793158
Biophys J. 2010 Aug 4;99(3):745-54
pubmed: 20682251
Mol Cell Biomech. 2017;14(3):137-151
pubmed: 30147632
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Mar;151(3):687-694.e3
pubmed: 26548998
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 14;14(8):e0220328
pubmed: 31412062
Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1992;20(5-6):427-49
pubmed: 1486784
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;276:93-99
pubmed: 30217422
Eur J Mech A Solids. 2014 Nov;48:38-47
pubmed: 25267880
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2014 Jul 11;16:53-76
pubmed: 24819475
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2018 Feb;21(3):255-263
pubmed: 29466869
J Eng Math. 2015;95(1):231-248
pubmed: 26663931
J Biomech Eng. 2014 Feb;136(2):021007
pubmed: 24337452
Circulation. 1996 Aug 1;94(3):467-71
pubmed: 8759090
J Biomech. 2020 Jan 2;98:109428
pubmed: 31653505
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009 Sep 13;367(1902):3445-75
pubmed: 19657007
Comput Struct. 2007;85(11-14):988-997
pubmed: 19809530
J Biomech Eng. 2008 Aug;130(4):041010
pubmed: 18601452
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2019 Jun 4;21:417-442
pubmed: 31167105
PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Apr;5(4):e1000371
pubmed: 19390615
J Biomech. 1993 Jun;26(6):665-76
pubmed: 8514812
Biophys J. 2008 Sep;95(5):2368-90
pubmed: 18234826
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 14;11(9):e0162986
pubmed: 27627806
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Sep 1;266:167-173
pubmed: 29887442
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Jan;145(1):285-93, 293.e1-2
pubmed: 22487437
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2014 Jan;13(1):99-113
pubmed: 23609894
Br Heart J. 1994 Dec;72(6 Suppl):S2-3
pubmed: 7873319