Key result
Detailed endocardial structures in right ventricular models increased intra-ventricular pressure drop, decreased wall shear stress, and disrupted the dominant vortex compared to smoothed models.
Why the study?
Does the inclusion of detailed endocardial structures in computational models alter right ventricular hemodynamic parameters compared to smoothed models?
Does the inclusion of detailed endocardial structures in computational models alter right ventricular hemodynamic parameters compared to smoothed models?
Neglecting detailed endocardial structures in right ventricular hemodynamic models may lead to inaccurate conclusions about pressures, stresses, and blood flow behavior.
Detailed RV endocardial anatomy may refine haemodynamic simulations; leaves open clinical translation pending in vivo validation.
Computational modelling plays an important role in right ventricular (RV) haemodynamic analysis. However, current approaches use smoothed ventricular anatomies. The aim of this study is to characterise RV haemodynamics including detailed endocardial structures like trabeculae, moderator band, and papillary muscles. Four paired detailed and smoothed RV endocardium models (2 male and 2 female) were reconstructed from ex vivo human hearts high‐resolution magnetic resonance images. Detailed models include structures with ≥1 mm 2 cross‐sectional area. Haemodynamic characterisation was done by computational fluid dynamics simulations with steady and transient inflows, using high‐performance computing. The differences between the flows in smoothed and detailed models were assessed using Q‐criterion for vorticity quantification, the pressure drop between inlet and outlet, and the wall shear stress. Results demonstrated that detailed endocardial structures increase the degree of intra‐ventricular pressure drop, decrease the wall shear stress, and disrupt the dominant vortex creating secondary small vortices. Increasingly turbulent blood flow was observed in the detailed RVs. Female RVs were less trabeculated and presented lower pressure drops than the males. In conclusion, neglecting endocardial structures in RV haemodynamic models may lead to inaccurate conclusions about the pressures, stresses, and blood flow behaviour in the cavity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sacco et al. (2018) studied Right ventricular haemodynamics (n=4). Detailed endocardial structures (trabeculae, moderator band, papillary muscles) vs. Smoothed ventricular anatomies was evaluated on Haemodynamic characterisation (vorticity, pressure drop, wall shear stress). Detailed endocardial structures in right ventricular models increased intra-ventricular pressure drop, decreased wall shear stress, and disrupted the dominant vortex compared to smoothed models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: