Key result
Stiffer 3D-printed aorta models increase PWV ~26% and elevate systolic pressure versus compliant models.
Why the study?
Aortic wall stiffening predicts morbidity in hypertension, but the impact of wall stiffness and temporal resolution on 4D-flow MRI-derived hemodynamics and PWV required evaluation in controlled models.
Using compliant aorta models in synthetic flow circuits is essential to accurately recapitulate in vivo hemodynamics and accurately quantify metrics like pulse wave velocity using 4D-flow MRI.
Compliant models are essential for accurate in vitro hemodynamics; leaves open translation to clinical 4D-flow MRI validation.
Aortic wall stiffening is a predictive marker for morbidity in hypertensive patients. Arterial pulse wave velocity (PWV) correlates with the level of stiffness and can be derived using non-invasive 4D-flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The objectives of this study were twofold: to develop subject-specific thoracic aorta models embedded into an MRI-compatible flow circuit operating under controlled physiological conditions; and to evaluate how a range of aortic wall stiffness impacts 4D-flow-based quantification of hemodynamics, particularly PWV. Three aorta models were 3D-printed using a novel photopolymer material at two compliant and one nearly rigid stiffnesses and characterized via tensile testing. Luminal pressure and 4D-flow MRI data were acquired for each model and cross-sectional net flow, peak velocities, and PWV were measured. In addition, the confounding effect of temporal resolution on all metrics was evaluated. Stiffer models resulted in increased systolic pressures (112, 116, and 133 mmHg), variations in velocity patterns, and increased peak velocities, peak flow rate, and PWV (5.8 to 7.3 m/s). Lower temporal resolution (20 ms down to 62.5 ms per image frame) impacted estimates of peak velocity and PWV (7.31 down to 4.77 m/s). Using compliant aorta models is essential to produce realistic flow dynamics and conditions that recapitulated in vivo hemodynamics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zimmermann et al. (2021) studied Healthy (n=1). Compliant 3D-printed aorta models vs. Rigid 3D-printed aorta model was evaluated on Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and peak velocities. Stiffer 3D-printed aorta models resulted in increased systolic pressures (112 to 133 mmHg) and pulse wave velocity (5.8 to 7.3 m/s) compared to compliant models in an MRI-compatible flow circuit.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: