Key result
Two proposed methods for estimating wall shear stress magnitude from 4D flow MRI provided better agreement with direct numerical simulation (errors <15% and <25%) than the standard approach (84% error).
Why the study?
Accurate estimation of wall shear stress from 4D flow MRI downstream of a severe stenosis is challenging when flow measurement resolution is limited.
Do alternative methods for estimating wall shear stress from 4D flow MRI improve agreement with direct numerical simulation compared to standard approaches in a stenosed aorta model?
Do alternative methods for estimating wall shear stress from 4D flow MRI improve agreement with direct numerical simulation compared to standard approaches in a stenosed aorta model?
Two proposed methods for estimating wall shear stress from 4D flow MRI data provide better agreement with direct numerical simulation than standard approaches in an in vitro stenosed aorta model.
May refine WSS estimation from 4D flow MRI in vitro; leaves open clinical translation pending in vivo validation.
PURPOSE: First, to investigate the agreement between velocity, velocity gradient, and Reynolds stress obtained from four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance (4D flow MRI) measurements and direct numerical simulation (DNS). Second, to propose and optimize based on DNS, 2 alternative methods for the accurate estimation of wall shear stress (WSS) when the resolution of the flow measurements is limited. Thirdly, to validate the 2 methods based on 4D flow MRI data. METHODS: In vitro 4D MRI has been conducted in a realistic rigid stenosed aorta model under a constant flow rate of 12 L/min. A DNS of transitional stenotic flow has been performed using the same geometry and boundary conditions. RESULTS: Time-averaged velocity and Reynolds stresses are in good agreement between in vitro 4D MRI data and DNS (errors between 2% and 8% of the reference downsampled data). WSS estimation based on the 2 proposed methods applied to MRI data provide good agreement with DNS for slice-averaged values (maximum error is less than 15% of the mean reference WSS for the first method and 25% for the second method). The performance of both models is not strongly sensitive to spatial resolution up to 1.5 mm voxel size. While the performance of model 1 deteriorates appreciably at low signal-to-noise ratios, model 2 remains robust. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods for WSS magnitude give an overall better agreement than the standard approach used in the literature based on direct calculation of the velocity gradient close to the wall (relative error of 84%).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Corso et al. (2021) studied Stenosed aorta. Two alternative methods for estimating wall shear stress (WSS) vs. Standard approach based on direct calculation of the velocity gradient close to the wall was evaluated on Agreement of wall shear stress (WSS) estimation with direct numerical simulation (DNS). Two proposed methods for estimating wall shear stress magnitude from 4D flow MRI provided better agreement with direct numerical simulation (errors <15% and <25%) than the standard approach (84% error).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: