Why the study?
Minor aortic branches carry 7-21% of cardiac output and are implicated in TBAD progression, but are virtually always neglected in numerical simulations.
Does the inclusion of minor aortic branches improve the accuracy of hemodynamic metrics in patient-specific flow simulations of Type-B aortic dissection?
Does the inclusion of minor aortic branches improve the accuracy of hemodynamic metrics in patient-specific flow simulations of Type-B aortic dissection?
Including minor aortic branches in TBAD flow simulations significantly alters hemodynamic metrics like wall shear stress and pressure, highlighting the need to account for them for accurate clinical modeling.
Neglecting minor branches may bias TBAD flow simulations; leaves open their necessity in clinical modeling workflows.
Type-B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a disease in which a tear develops in the intimal layer of the descending aorta forming a true lumen and false lumen (FL). Because disease outcomes are thought to be influenced by haemodynamic quantities such as pressure and wall shear stress (WSS), their analysis via numerical simulations may provide valuable clinical insights. Major aortic branches are routinely included in simulations but minor branches are virtually always neglected, despite being implicated in TBAD progression and the development of complications. As minor branches are estimated to carry about 7-21% of cardiac output, neglecting them may affect simulation accuracy. We present the first simulation of TBAD with all pairs of intercostal, subcostal and lumbar arteries, using 4D-flow MRI (4DMR) to inform patient-specific boundary conditions. Compared to an equivalent case without minor branches, their inclusion improved agreement with 4DMR velocities, reduced time-averaged WSS (TAWSS) and transmural pressure and elevated oscillatory shear in regions where FL dilatation and calcification were observed in vivo. Minor branch inclusion resulted in differences of 60-75% in these metrics of potential clinical relevance, indicating a need to account for minor branch flow loss if simulation accuracy is sought.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stokes et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: