冠状动脉粥样硬化评估:一种新的解剖、功能、形态和生物力学方法

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics Pub Date : 2021-12-30 DOI:10.24874/jsscm.2021.15.02.03
P. Siogkas, G. Kalykakis, C. Anagnostopoulos, T. Exarchos
{"title":"冠状动脉粥样硬化评估:一种新的解剖、功能、形态和生物力学方法","authors":"P. Siogkas, G. Kalykakis, C. Anagnostopoulos, T. Exarchos","doi":"10.24874/jsscm.2021.15.02.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aims of this work are to investigate and compare two different flow dynamics techniques (steady state - pulsatile flow) for endothelial shear stress calculation, compare lesion specific smartFFR and ESS values, as well as total vessel smartFFR and ESS values, and investigate the relationship between smartFFR and ESS to stress MBF (myocardial blood flow) and MFR (myocardial flow reserve). A total of 10 coronary vessels of 6 patients with intermediate pre-test likelihood for coronary artery disease, who have undergone both CTCA and PET-MPI with 15O-water or 13N-ammonia, were included in the study. Seven (7) cases had normal stress MBF and MFR values and three (3) had abnormal ones. PET was considered abnormal when > 1 contiguous segments showed both stress MBF ≤2.3mL/g/min and MFR ≤2.5 for 15O-water or 1.79 mL/g/min and ≤2.0 for 13N-ammonia, respectively. The ESS at the luminal surface of the artery was calculated as the product of viscosity and the gradient of blood velocity near the vessel wall. To calculate the smartFFR, we performed a transient simulation for each case. We used a pressure of 100 mmHg as a boundary condition at the inlet (i.e. mean human aortic pressure). At the outlet, a flow profile of 4 timesteps with a timestep duration of 0.25 sec was used. In each timestep, a volumetric flow rate of 1, 2, 3 and 4 ml/s are applied as outlet boundary conditions. The cut-off value for a pathological smartFFR is 0.83. There is a difference in total vessel calculated smartFFR results compared to the corresponding values of lesion specific smartFFR (0.88 vs 0.97, p=0.01). For ESS there is a negligible difference between lesion specific and total vessel values (2.22 vs 2.74, p = 0.9). There is a moderate negative correlation between both lesions specific (r = -0.543) and total vessel smartFFR and ESS (r = -0.915). ESS values were higher in vessels where vessel smartFFR was considered abnormal (1.97 vs 5.52, p = 0.01). Total vessel length smartFFR was lower in vessels with abnormal PET-MPI compared to the normal vessels (0.75 vs 0.93, p = 0.01). ESS is higher in vessels with pathological stress MBF and CFR (5.5 vs 2.0, p = 0.02). The total vessel length smartFFR and lesion ESS appear to assess the functional significance of the vessel well, when compared to the PET-MPI measurements.","PeriodicalId":42945,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CORONARY ATHEROSCLEROSIS ASSESSMENT: A NEW ANATOMICAL, FUNCTIONAL, MORPHOLOGICAL AND BIO-MECHANICAL APPROACH\",\"authors\":\"P. Siogkas, G. Kalykakis, C. Anagnostopoulos, T. Exarchos\",\"doi\":\"10.24874/jsscm.2021.15.02.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aims of this work are to investigate and compare two different flow dynamics techniques (steady state - pulsatile flow) for endothelial shear stress calculation, compare lesion specific smartFFR and ESS values, as well as total vessel smartFFR and ESS values, and investigate the relationship between smartFFR and ESS to stress MBF (myocardial blood flow) and MFR (myocardial flow reserve). A total of 10 coronary vessels of 6 patients with intermediate pre-test likelihood for coronary artery disease, who have undergone both CTCA and PET-MPI with 15O-water or 13N-ammonia, were included in the study. Seven (7) cases had normal stress MBF and MFR values and three (3) had abnormal ones. PET was considered abnormal when > 1 contiguous segments showed both stress MBF ≤2.3mL/g/min and MFR ≤2.5 for 15O-water or 1.79 mL/g/min and ≤2.0 for 13N-ammonia, respectively. The ESS at the luminal surface of the artery was calculated as the product of viscosity and the gradient of blood velocity near the vessel wall. To calculate the smartFFR, we performed a transient simulation for each case. We used a pressure of 100 mmHg as a boundary condition at the inlet (i.e. mean human aortic pressure). At the outlet, a flow profile of 4 timesteps with a timestep duration of 0.25 sec was used. In each timestep, a volumetric flow rate of 1, 2, 3 and 4 ml/s are applied as outlet boundary conditions. The cut-off value for a pathological smartFFR is 0.83. There is a difference in total vessel calculated smartFFR results compared to the corresponding values of lesion specific smartFFR (0.88 vs 0.97, p=0.01). For ESS there is a negligible difference between lesion specific and total vessel values (2.22 vs 2.74, p = 0.9). There is a moderate negative correlation between both lesions specific (r = -0.543) and total vessel smartFFR and ESS (r = -0.915). ESS values were higher in vessels where vessel smartFFR was considered abnormal (1.97 vs 5.52, p = 0.01). Total vessel length smartFFR was lower in vessels with abnormal PET-MPI compared to the normal vessels (0.75 vs 0.93, p = 0.01). ESS is higher in vessels with pathological stress MBF and CFR (5.5 vs 2.0, p = 0.02). The total vessel length smartFFR and lesion ESS appear to assess the functional significance of the vessel well, when compared to the PET-MPI measurements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24874/jsscm.2021.15.02.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24874/jsscm.2021.15.02.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本工作的目的是研究和比较用于内皮剪切应力计算的两种不同的流动动力学技术(稳态-脉动流),比较病变特异性smartFFR和ESS值,以及总血管smartFFR和ESS值,并研究smartFFR和ESS与应力MBF(心肌血流量)和MFR(心肌流量储备)的关系。本研究共纳入了6名冠状动脉疾病测试前可能性中等的患者的10条冠状动脉,这些患者用15O水或13N氨同时接受了CTCA和PET-MPI治疗。7例应力MBF和MFR值正常,3例应力异常。当>1个连续片段显示应力MBF≤2.3mL/g/min和MFR≤2.5(对于15O水)或1.79mL/g/min和≤2.0(对于13N氨)时,PET被认为是异常的。动脉管腔表面的ESS计算为血管壁附近的粘度和血流速度梯度的乘积。为了计算smartFFR,我们对每种情况进行了瞬态模拟。我们使用100毫米汞柱的压力作为入口的边界条件(即平均人主动脉压)。在出口处,使用4个时间步长的流动剖面,时间步长持续时间为0.25秒。在每个时间步长中,应用1、2、3和4ml/s的体积流速作为出口边界条件。病理智能血流储备分数的临界值为0.83。与病变特异性smartFFR的相应值相比,总血管计算的smartFFR结果存在差异(0.88 vs 0.97,p=0.01)。对于ESS,病变特异性和总血管值之间的差异可以忽略不计(2.22 vs 2.74,p=0.9)。病变特异性(r=-0.543)与总血管smartFFR&ESS之间存在中度负相关(r=-0.915)在血管smartFFR被认为异常的血管中,ESS值更高(1.97 vs 5.52,p=0.01)。与正常血管相比,PET-MPI异常的血管的总血管长度smartFFR更低(0.75 vs 0.93,p=01)。在具有病理应力MBF和CFR的血管中ESS更高(5.5 vs 2.0,p=0.02)与PET-MPI测量值相比,血管井的功能意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CORONARY ATHEROSCLEROSIS ASSESSMENT: A NEW ANATOMICAL, FUNCTIONAL, MORPHOLOGICAL AND BIO-MECHANICAL APPROACH
The aims of this work are to investigate and compare two different flow dynamics techniques (steady state - pulsatile flow) for endothelial shear stress calculation, compare lesion specific smartFFR and ESS values, as well as total vessel smartFFR and ESS values, and investigate the relationship between smartFFR and ESS to stress MBF (myocardial blood flow) and MFR (myocardial flow reserve). A total of 10 coronary vessels of 6 patients with intermediate pre-test likelihood for coronary artery disease, who have undergone both CTCA and PET-MPI with 15O-water or 13N-ammonia, were included in the study. Seven (7) cases had normal stress MBF and MFR values and three (3) had abnormal ones. PET was considered abnormal when > 1 contiguous segments showed both stress MBF ≤2.3mL/g/min and MFR ≤2.5 for 15O-water or 1.79 mL/g/min and ≤2.0 for 13N-ammonia, respectively. The ESS at the luminal surface of the artery was calculated as the product of viscosity and the gradient of blood velocity near the vessel wall. To calculate the smartFFR, we performed a transient simulation for each case. We used a pressure of 100 mmHg as a boundary condition at the inlet (i.e. mean human aortic pressure). At the outlet, a flow profile of 4 timesteps with a timestep duration of 0.25 sec was used. In each timestep, a volumetric flow rate of 1, 2, 3 and 4 ml/s are applied as outlet boundary conditions. The cut-off value for a pathological smartFFR is 0.83. There is a difference in total vessel calculated smartFFR results compared to the corresponding values of lesion specific smartFFR (0.88 vs 0.97, p=0.01). For ESS there is a negligible difference between lesion specific and total vessel values (2.22 vs 2.74, p = 0.9). There is a moderate negative correlation between both lesions specific (r = -0.543) and total vessel smartFFR and ESS (r = -0.915). ESS values were higher in vessels where vessel smartFFR was considered abnormal (1.97 vs 5.52, p = 0.01). Total vessel length smartFFR was lower in vessels with abnormal PET-MPI compared to the normal vessels (0.75 vs 0.93, p = 0.01). ESS is higher in vessels with pathological stress MBF and CFR (5.5 vs 2.0, p = 0.02). The total vessel length smartFFR and lesion ESS appear to assess the functional significance of the vessel well, when compared to the PET-MPI measurements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RENORMALIZATION GROUP METHOD FOR A CLASS OF LAGRANGE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NANOFLUID NATURAL CONVECTION FLOW IN A CPU HEAT SINK USING BUONGIORNO TOW-PHASE MODEL UNSTEADY NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF FERROFLUID FORCED CONVECTION OVER A DOWNWARD STEP CONTAINING A ROTATING FINNED CYLINDER NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF SUPERSONIC FLOW SEPARATION IN THRUST-OPTIMIZED CONTOUR ROCKET NOZZLE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF IN SILICO CLINICAL TRIALS OF VASCULAR STENTS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1