Key result
Critical review outlines 30-year evolution of myocardial biomechanical models, highlighting structural approaches and future directions.
Why the study?
Understanding and predicting myocardial mechanical behavior under healthy and pathophysiological conditions is vital for developing cardiac therapies and personalized interventions.
This review synthesizes 30 years of biomechanical modeling of the myocardium, providing a foundation for future developments in personalized cardiac therapies.
May inform myocardial model selection in research; leaves open clinical validation for personalized therapies.
Understanding and predicting the mechanical behavior of myocardium under healthy and pathophysiological conditions are vital to developing novel cardiac therapies and promoting personalized interventions. Within the past 30 years, various constitutive models have been proposed for the passive mechanical behavior of myocardium. These models cover a broad range of mathematical forms, microstructural observations, and specific test conditions to which they are fitted. We present a critical review of these models, covering both phenomenological and structural approaches, and their relations to the underlying structure and function of myocardium. We further explore the experimental and numerical techniques used to identify the model parameters. Next, we provide a brief overview of continuum-level electromechanical models of myocardium, with a focus on the methods used to integrate the active and passive components of myocardial behavior. We conclude by pointing to future directions in the areas of optimal form as well as new approaches for constitutive modeling of myocardium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avazmohammadi et al. (2019) conducted a review in Myocardium biomechanical models. A critical review of biomechanical models of myocardium over the past 30 years highlights phenomenological and structural approaches, parameter identification techniques, and future directions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: