Key result
Virtual PA pressure sensors cause no pro-thrombotic hemodynamic changes in human in silico models.
Why the study?
Implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors may impose a flow-induced thrombus risk, but porcine and human pulmonary arteries differ significantly, leaving the transferability of animal in silico findings to humans unclear.
Does virtual implantation of pulmonary artery pressure sensors cause relevant hemodynamic changes increasing thrombus risk in human pulmonary arteries?
Does virtual implantation of pulmonary artery pressure sensors cause relevant hemodynamic changes increasing thrombus risk in human pulmonary arteries?
In silico modeling confirms that implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors do not cause relevant hemodynamic changes that increase thrombus risk in human pulmonary arteries, translating findings from porcine models.
Indicates low thrombus risk from sensor implantation; extends animal data but leaves open human validation.
Implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors (PAPS) might impose a flow-induced risk of thrombus formation in the pulmonary artery (PA). To assess this risk, an in silico study-enhanced animal study with 20 sensors implanted in 10 pigs had previously been conducted. In the in silico study, PAPS were virtually implanted mimicking real implantations, based upon data acquired by CT. This animal in silico study investigated changes in hemodynamics caused by PAPS using image-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD). However, porcine and human PA differ significantly in geometry and hemodynamics. To investigate the transferability of animal in silico study findings toward human conditions, we propose a parallel in silico human study. Based on a similarity analysis (L1 norm for 8 geometric features) human PA geometries with the least difference to 10 porcine PA were selected. PAPS were virtually implanted in human PA as close as possible, mimicking the implantation configuration of the animal study. Finally, a numerical flow analysis of the hemodynamic changes due to PAPS implantation was done. Comparing human and porcine PA, we found significantly larger left and right PA diameters in humans, whereas no differences were found for main PA diameters and bifurcation angle. Comparing hemodynamic boundary conditions, we found a significantly smaller heart rate and a significantly higher peak systolic main PA flow rate in humans, whereas no significant differences for cardiac output were found. The human in silico PAPS study found no relevant changes in hemodynamics increasing the risk of thrombus formation after sensor implantation. This is also valid for PAPS that were non-optimally implanted. Thus, despite differences between species, findings of the in silico animal study were confirmed by the human in silico study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goubergrits et al. (2025) studied this question. Virtual implantation of pulmonary artery pressure sensors (PAPS) vs. Porcine in silico model was evaluated on Changes in hemodynamics increasing the risk of thrombus formation. Virtual implantation of pulmonary artery pressure sensors in human in silico models caused no relevant hemodynamic changes increasing thrombus risk, confirming prior animal study findings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: