Relative pressure reconstruction using the conservation form of convection exhibited higher noise sensitivity than the standard convective description.
In imaging-based relative pressure reconstruction, convective terms are the primary source of error, and standard convective descriptions are less sensitive to noise than conservation forms.
The mechanism of many cardiovascular diseases can be understood by studying the pressure distribution in blood vessels. Direct pressure measurements, however, require invasive probing and provide only single-point data. Alternatively, relative pressure fields can be reconstructed from imaging-based velocity measurements by considering viscous and inertial forces. Both contributions can be potential troublemakers in pressure reconstruction: the former due to its higher-order derivatives, and the latter because of the quadratic nonlinearity in the convective acceleration. Viscous and convective terms can be treated in various forms, which, although equivalent for ideal measurements, can perform differently in practice. In fact, multiple versions are often used in literature, with no apparent consensus on the more suitable variants. In this context, the present work investigates the performance of different versions of relative pressure estimators. For viscous effects, in particular, two new modified estimators are presented to circumvent second-order differentiation without requiring surface integrals. In-silico and in-vitro data in the typical regime of cerebrovascular flows are considered, allowing a systematic noise sensitivity study. Convective terms are shown to be the main source of error, even for flows with pronounced viscous component. Moreover, the conservation (often integrated) form of convection exhibits higher noise sensitivity than the standard convective description, in all three families of estimators considered here. For the classical pressure Poisson estimator, the present modified version of the viscous term tends to yield better accuracy than the (recently introduced) integrated form, although this effect is in most cases negligible when compared to convection-related errors.
Douglas R. Q. Pacheco (Tue,) conducted a other in Cardiovascular diseases (cerebrovascular flows). Relative pressure estimators (modified estimators for viscous effects) vs. Standard convective description / classical pressure Poisson estimator was evaluated on Noise sensitivity and accuracy of relative pressure estimators. Relative pressure reconstruction using the conservation form of convection exhibited higher noise sensitivity than the standard convective description.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: