Key result
Computational fluid dynamics simulation over-predicted false lumen flow rate by 25% at peak systole compared to PC-MRI, but achieved overall good qualitative agreement for type B aortic dissection.
Why the study?
Does a computational fluid dynamics model accurately predict flow in aortic dissection compared to PC-MRI velocity measurements?
Population
Type B aortic dissection geometry reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) images
Comparison
Computational fluid dynamics simulation… vs In vivo velocity data obtained by phase-contrast…
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Cautions against sole reliance on CFD for quantitative flow assessment in aortic dissection; leaves open its role in qualitative hemodynamic research.
Does a computational fluid dynamics model accurately predict flow in aortic dissection compared to PC-MRI velocity measurements?
A computational fluid dynamics model with a laminar-turbulent transition model provides physiologically relevant flow simulations for type B aortic dissection, despite over-predicting false lumen flow rate by 25% at peak systole.
Cheng et al. (2014) studied Type B aortic dissection. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation vs. Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) was evaluated on Velocity contours and false lumen flow rate. Computational fluid dynamics simulation over-predicted false lumen flow rate by 25% at peak systole compared to PC-MRI, but achieved overall good qualitative agreement for type B aortic dissection.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: