Key result
A multiparameter computational approach showed that ranking Fontan performance by energy efficiency (74-96% at rest) does not correlate with rankings using other clinical parameters.
A multiparameter computational approach demonstrates that evaluating energy dissipation alone is insufficient for comprehensive evaluation of Fontan designs.
Energy efficiency rankings alone may mislead Fontan assessment; leaves open whether multiparameter models improve clinical decision-making.
INTRODUCTION: Despite an abundance of prior Fontan simulation articles, there have been relatively few clinical advances that are a direct result of computational methods. We address a few key limitations of previous Fontan simulations as a step towards increasing clinical relevance. Previous simulations have been limited in scope because they have primarily focused on a single energy loss parameter. We present a multi-parameter approach to Fontan modeling that establishes a platform for clinical decision making and comprehensive evaluation of proposed interventions. METHODS: Time-dependent, 3-D blood flow simulations were performed on six patient-specific Fontan models. Key modeling advances include detailed pulmonary anatomy, catheterization-derived pressures, and MRI-derived flow with respiration. The following performance parameters were used to rank patients at rest and simulated exercise from best to worst performing: energy efficiency, inferior and superior vena cava (IVC, SVC) pressures, wall shear stress, and IVC flow distribution. RESULTS: Simulated pressures were well matched to catheterization data, but low Fontan pressure did not correlate with high efficiency. Efficiency varied from 74% to 96% at rest, and from 63% to 91% with exercise. Distribution of IVC flow ranged from 88%/12% (LPA/RPA) to 53%/47%. A "transcatheter" virtual intervention demonstrates the utility of computation in evaluating interventional strategies, and is shown to result in increased energy efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: A multiparameter approach demonstrates that each parameter results in a different ranking of Fontan performance. Ranking patients using energy efficiency does not correlate with the ranking using other parameters of presumed clinical importance. As such, current simulation methods that evaluate energy dissipation alone are not sufficient for a comprehensive evaluation of new Fontan designs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marsden et al. (2010) studied Fontan circulation (n=6). Multiparameter computational simulation was evaluated on Fontan performance parameters (energy efficiency, pressures, wall shear stress, flow distribution). A multiparameter computational approach showed that ranking Fontan performance by energy efficiency (74-96% at rest) does not correlate with rankings using other clinical parameters.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: