Key result
A two-dimensional fluid-structure interaction model predicted velocity integration, stroke volume, and cardiac output at rest with high correlation (r = 0.990-0.995) and a 5.4 to 15.87% difference compared to echo-Doppler measurements.
Why the study?
Does a 2D fluid-structure interaction model accurately predict velocity integration, stroke volume, and cardiac output compared to echo-Doppler in healthy subjects at rest?
Does a 2D fluid-structure interaction model accurately predict velocity integration, stroke volume, and cardiac output compared to echo-Doppler in healthy subjects at rest?
A 2D fluid-structure interaction model can accurately estimate patient-specific hemodynamics (velocity integration, stroke volume, cardiac output) at rest with high correlation to clinical echo-Doppler measurements.
Supports computational model refinement in research; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Development of knowledge of cardiovascular diseases and treatments strongly depends on understanding of hemodynamic measurements. Hemodynamic parameters, therefore, have been investigated using simulation-based methods. A two-dimensional model was applied for seven healthy subjects with echo-Doppler at rest. Echocardiography imaging was also utilized to gain the geometry of the aortic valve. Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) model was carried out, coupling an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian mesh. Pressure loads were used as boundary conditions on the valve's ventricular and aortic sides. Pressure loads used were the calculated brachial pressures plus differences between brachial, central and left ventricular pressures. The FSI model predicted the velocity integration, stroke volume and cardiac output over a range of heart rates while rest. Numerical results generally had a difference of 5.4 to 15.87% with Doppler results. Linear correlations between numerical and clinical approaches have been applied. This makes possible predictions achieved from the FSI model to be gained which are highly accurate (e.g. correlation factor r = 0.995, 0.990 and 0.990 for velocity integration, stroke volume and cardiac output, respectively). The obtained numerical results showed that numerical methods can be combined with clinical measurements to provide good estimates of patient specific hemodynamics for different subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khosravi et al. (2014) studied Healthy (n=7). 2D Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) model vs. Echo-Doppler measurements was evaluated on Correlation between numerical (FSI) and clinical (Doppler) measurements of hemodynamics (r = 0.990-0.995). A two-dimensional fluid-structure interaction model predicted velocity integration, stroke volume, and cardiac output at rest with high correlation (r = 0.990-0.995) and a 5.4 to 15.87% difference compared to echo-Doppler measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: