Why the study?
Serial imaging for risk stratification of late complications in aortic dissection is not always reliable, whereas aortic haemodynamics are essential to evaluate disease progression.
Does image-based computational flow analysis improve risk prediction in patients with aortic dissection compared to standard serial imaging?
Does image-based computational flow analysis improve risk prediction in patients with aortic dissection compared to standard serial imaging?
Image-based computational flow analysis, including CFD and 4D-flow MRI, offers a promising approach for personalized risk stratification in patients with aortic dissection.
May support personalized aortic dissection risk stratification; leaves open prospective validation versus serial imaging.
Patients with either a repaired or medically managed aortic dissection have varying degrees of risk of developing late complications. High-risk patients would benefit from earlier intervention to improve their long-term survival. Currently serial imaging is used for risk stratification, which is not always reliable. On the other hand, understanding aortic haemodynamics within a dissection is essential to fully evaluate the disease and predict how it may progress. In recent decades, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been extensively applied to simulate complex haemodynamics within aortic diseases, and more recently, four-dimensional (4D)-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques have been developed for in vivo haemodynamic measurement. This paper presents a comprehensive review on the application of image-based CFD simulations and 4D-flow MRI analysis for risk prediction in aortic dissection. The key steps involved in patient-specific CFD analyses are demonstrated. Finally, we propose a workflow incorporating computational modelling for personalised assessment to aid in risk stratification and treatment decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: