Key result
A fluid-structure interaction model of the aortic root better captured fast aortic valve dynamics compared to a structural model, but was ten times more computationally demanding.
Why the study?
Does fluid-structure interaction modeling improve the computational analysis of aortic root biomechanics compared to structural modeling?
Does fluid-structure interaction modeling improve the computational analysis of aortic root biomechanics compared to structural modeling?
Fluid-structure interaction modeling of the aortic root provides more realistic fluid dynamics and valve transient dynamics compared to structural models, but at a tenfold higher computational cost.
FSI models may refine aortic root simulations in preclinical research; leaves open whether accuracy gains justify routine computational costs.
Numerical modeling can provide detailed and quantitative information on aortic root (AR) biomechanics, improving the understanding of AR complex pathophysiology and supporting the development of more effective clinical treatments. From this standpoint, fluid-structure interaction (FSI) models are currently the most exhaustive and potentially realistic computational tools. However, AR FSI modeling is extremely challenging and computationally expensive, due to the explicit simulation of coupled AR fluid dynamics and structural response, while accounting for complex morphological and mechanical features. We developed a novel FSI model of the physiological AR simulating its function throughout the entire cardiac cycle. The model includes an asymmetric MRI-based geometry, the description of aortic valve (AV) non-linear and anisotropic mechanical properties, and time-dependent blood pressures. By comparison to an equivalent finite element structural model, we quantified the balance between the extra information and the extra computational cost associated with the FSI approach. Tissue strains and stresses computed through the two approaches did not differ significantly. The FSI approach better captured the fast AV opening and closure, and its interplay with blood fluid dynamics within the Valsalva sinuses. It also reproduced the main features of in vivo AR fluid dynamics. However, the FSI simulation was ten times more computationally demanding than its structural counterpart. Hence, the FSI approach may be worth the extra computational cost when the tackled scenarios are strongly dependent on AV transient dynamics, Valsalva sinuses fluid dynamics in relation to coronary perfusion (e.g. sparing techniques), or AR fluid dynamic alterations (e.g. bicuspid AV).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sturla et al. (2013) studied aortic root biomechanics. Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model vs. Finite element structural model was evaluated on Tissue strains and stresses, and computational cost. A fluid-structure interaction model of the aortic root better captured fast aortic valve dynamics compared to a structural model, but was ten times more computationally demanding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: