Correlation of four-dimensional ultrasound strain analysis with computed tomography angiography wall stress simulations in abdominal aortic aneurysms

Abstract

Objective

Biomechanical modeling of infrarenal aortic aneurysms seeks to predict ruptures in advance, thereby reducing aneurysm-related deaths. As individual methods focusing on strain and stress analysis lack adequate discretization power, this study aims to explore multifactorial characterization for progressive aneurysmal degeneration. The study’s objective is to compare stress- and strain-related parameters in infrarenal aortic aneurysms.

Methods

Twenty-two patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) (mean maximum diameter, 53.2 ± 7.2 mm) were included in the exploratory study, examined by computed tomography angiography (CTA) and three-dimensional real-time speckle tracking ultrasound (4D-US). The conformity of aneurysm anatomy in 4D-US and CTA was determined with the mean point-to-point distance (MPPD). CTA was employed for each AAA to characterize stress-related indices using the semi-automated A4-clinics RE software. Five segmentations from one 4D-US examination were fused into one averaged model for strain analysis using MATLAB and the Abaqus solver.

Results

The mean MPPD between the adjacent points of the 4D-US and CTA-derived geometry was 1.8 ± 0.4 mm. The interclass correlation coefficients for all raters and all measurements for the maximum AAA diameter in 2D, 4D ultrasound, and CTA indicate moderate to good reliability (interclass correlation coefficient₁ 0.69 with 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84; P < .001). The peak wall stress (PWS) correlates fairly with the maximum AAA diameter in 2D-US (r = 0.54; P < .01) and 4D-US (r = 0.53; P < .05) and moderately strongly with the maximum exterior AAA diameter (r = 0.63; P < .01). The peak wall rupture risk index shows a strong correlation with the PWS (ρ > 0.9; P < .001) and is influenced by anatomical parameters with equal strength. Isolated observation of the intraluminal thrombus does not provide significant information in the determination of PWS. The maximum AAA diameter in 2D-US shows a fair negative correlation with the mean circumferential, longitudinal and in-plane shear strain (ρ = −0.46; r = −0.45; ρ = −0.47; P < .05 for all). The circumferential strain ratio as an indicator of wall motion heterogeneity increases with the aneurysm diameter (r = 0.47; P < .05). The direct comparison of wall strain and wall stress indices shows no quantitative correlation.

Conclusions

The strain and stress analyses provide independent biomechanical information of AAAs. At the current stage of development, the two methods are considered complementary and may optimize a more patient-specific rupture risk prediction in the future.