Key result
Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis match fluid-structure interaction for estimating coronary plaque progression.
Why the study?
Computational simulations evaluate coronary atherosclerosis progression, but few studies have utilized more realistic fluid-structure interaction simulations, leaving differences in plaque progression indices estimation across methods unclear.
Do CFD and structural FEA provide comparable results to FSI for estimating plaque progression indices in coronary arteries?
Do CFD and structural FEA provide comparable results to FSI for estimating plaque progression indices in coronary arteries?
CFD and structural FEA provide comparable results to more computationally expensive FSI simulations for evaluating atherosclerosis progression indices in coronary arteries.
May support efficient CFD/FEA over FSI for plaque indices; leaves open prospective clinical validation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In recent years, computational simulations have emerged as valuable tools for the evaluation of atherosclerosis progression in coronary anatomies, although only a few studies have utilized more realistic Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) simulations. This work aims to compare the results of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Structural Finite Element Analysis (structural FEA) and FSI simulations in order to assess differences in plaque progression indices estimation. METHODS: We performed structural FEA, CFD and FSI on five patient-specific epicardial coronary anatomies using the commercial software LS-Dyna. To account for the vessel pre-stress, the zero-pressure configuration was calculated for each anatomy with an inverse elastostatic algorithm. CFD, structural FEA and FSI simulations were performed applying boundary conditions based on physiological values. RESULTS: The comparison between structural FEA and FSI showed similar stress distribution and vessel expansions, with differences found only in the distal parts of the coronaries, where pressure reduction due to pressure loss affects the vessel walls. The elastic walls of the coronaries impact blood flow, resulting in a more disturbed flow. However, time averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) distributions are similar across each coronary between CFD and FSI; TAWSS is slightly higher in CFD while OSI peaks are higher in FSI. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, given the significantly higher computational costs of FSI, we believe that CFD and structural FEA offer a more practical and cost-effective approach, providing results comparable to those of FSI, making them preferable options.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lissoni et al. (2025) studied Atherosclerosis progression in coronary arteries (n=5). Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Structural Finite Element Analysis (FEA) vs. Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) simulations was evaluated on Plaque progression indices estimation (stress distribution, vessel expansions, TAWSS, OSI). Computational Fluid Dynamics and structural Finite Element Analysis provided comparable results to Fluid-Structure Interaction simulations for estimating coronary plaque progression indices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: