» Articles » PMID: 33634167

Hemodynamic Modeling of Biological Aortic Valve Replacement Using Preoperative Data Only

Overview
Date 2021 Feb 26
PMID 33634167
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Prediction of aortic hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement (AVR) could help optimize treatment planning and improve outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate an approach to predict postoperative maximum velocity, maximum pressure gradient, secondary flow degree (SFD), and normalized flow displacement (NFD) in patients receiving biological AVR. Virtual AVR was performed for 10 patients, who received actual AVR with a biological prosthesis. The virtual AVRs used only preoperative anatomical and 4D flow MRI data. Subsequently, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed and the abovementioned hemodynamic parameters compared between postoperative 4D flow MRI data and CFD results. For maximum velocities and pressure gradients, postoperative 4D flow MRI data and CFD results were strongly correlated ( = 0.75 and = 0.81) with low root mean square error (0.21 m/s and 3.8 mmHg). SFD and NFD were moderately and weakly correlated at = 0.44 and = 0.20, respectively. Flow visualization through streamlines indicates good qualitative agreement between 4D flow MRI data and CFD results in most cases. The approach presented here seems suitable to estimate postoperative maximum velocity and pressure gradient in patients receiving biological AVR, using only preoperative MRI data. The workflow can be performed in a reasonable time frame and offers a method to estimate postoperative valve prosthesis performance and to identify patients at risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch preoperatively. Novel parameters, such as SFD and NFD, appear to be more sensitive, and estimation seems harder. Further workflow optimization and validation of results seems warranted.

Citing Articles

Investigation of Relationship between Hemodynamic and Morphometric Characteristics of Aortas in Pediatric Patients.

Doroshenko O, Kuchumov A, Golub M, Rakisheva I, Skripka N, Pavlov S J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274354 PMC: 11395979. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175141.


Modelling blood flow in patients with heart valve disease using deep learning: A computationally efficient method to expand diagnostic capabilities in clinical routine.

Yevtushenko P, Goubergrits L, Franke B, Kuehne T, Schafstedde M Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023; 10:1136935.

PMID: 36937926 PMC: 10020717. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1136935.


Effect of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair device position on diastolic hemodynamic parameters: An echocardiography-based simulation study.

Vellguth K, Barbieri F, Reinthaler M, Kasner M, Landmesser U, Kuehne T Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:915074.

PMID: 36093164 PMC: 9449143. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.915074.


CT-Based Analysis of Left Ventricular Hemodynamics Using Statistical Shape Modeling and Computational Fluid Dynamics.

Goubergrits L, Vellguth K, Obermeier L, Schlief A, Tautz L, Bruening J Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:901902.

PMID: 35865389 PMC: 9294248. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.901902.

References
1.
Hope M, Sigovan M, Wrenn S, Saloner D, Dyverfeldt P . MRI hemodynamic markers of progressive bicuspid aortic valve-related aortic disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 40(1):140-5. PMC: 4010553. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24362. View

2.
von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Karunaharamoorthy A, Trauzeddel R, Barker A, Blaszczyk E, Markl M . Evaluation of Aortic Blood Flow and Wall Shear Stress in Aortic Stenosis and Its Association With Left Ventricular Remodeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016; 9(3):e004038. PMC: 4772425. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.115.004038. View

3.
Norgaard B, Leipsic J, Gaur S, Seneviratne S, Ko B, Ito H . Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(12):1145-1155. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.043. View

4.
Bianchi M, Marom G, Ghosh R, Rotman O, Parikh P, Gruberg L . Patient-specific simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of deployment options on paravalvular leakage. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018; 18(2):435-451. PMC: 6476328. DOI: 10.1007/s10237-018-1094-8. View

5.
Burris N, Sigovan M, Knauer H, Tseng E, Saloner D, Hope M . Systolic flow displacement correlates with future ascending aortic growth in patients with bicuspid aortic valves undergoing magnetic resonance surveillance. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49(10):635-9. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000064. View