Key result
In Fontan patients, 4D Flow MRI and CFD showed agreement in velocity field and kinetic energy, but large discrepancies in viscous dissipation (0.14 vs 0.59 mW) and conduit flow distribution.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to characterize the hemodynamics of Fontan patients using both four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics.
How do hemodynamic parameters estimated by 4D Flow MRI compare to those from computational fluid dynamics in patients who have undergone the Fontan procedure?
Cohort (n=29)
How do hemodynamic parameters estimated by 4D Flow MRI compare to those from computational fluid dynamics in patients who have undergone the Fontan procedure?
Hemodynamic parameters such as viscous dissipation and conduit pulmonary flow distribution show large discrepancies between 4D Flow MRI and computational fluid dynamics in Fontan patients, necessitating careful interpretation.
Discrepancies in viscous dissipation and conduit PFD between modalities warrant cautious interpretation in Fontan patients; leaves open validation of hemodynamic assessment.
Introduction: The aim of this study was to characterize the hemodynamics of Fontan patients using both four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D Flow MRI) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Methods: Twenty-nine patients (3.5 ± 0.5 years) who had undergone the Fontan procedure were enrolled, and the superior vena cava (SVC), left pulmonary artery (LPA), right pulmonary artery (RPA), and conduit were segmented based on 4D Flow MRI images. Velocity fields from 4D Flow MRI were used as boundary conditions for CFD simulations. Hemodynamic parameters such as peak velocity (Vmax), pulmonary flow distribution (PFD), kinetic energy (KE), and viscous dissipation (VD) were estimated and compared between the two modalities. Results and discussion: The Vmax, KE, VD, PFD Total to LPA , and PFD Total to RPA of the Fontan circulation were 0.61 ± 0.18 m/s, 0.15 ± 0.04 mJ, 0.14 ± 0.04 mW, 41.3 ± 15.7%, and 58.7 ± 15.7% from 4D Flow MRI; and 0.42 ± 0.20 m/s, 0.12 ± 0.05 mJ, 0.59 ± 0.30 mW, 40.2 ± 16.4%, and 59.8 ± 16.4% from CFD, respectively. The overall velocity field, KE, and PFD from the SVC were in agreement between modalities. However, PFD from the conduit and VD showed a large discrepancy between 4D Flow MRI and CFD, most likely due to spatial resolution and data noise. This study highlights the necessity for careful consideration when analyzing hemodynamic data from different modalities in Fontan patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Fontan circulation (n=29). 4D Flow MRI vs. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was evaluated on Hemodynamic parameters (Vmax, PFD, KE, VD). In Fontan patients, 4D Flow MRI and CFD showed agreement in velocity field and kinetic energy, but large discrepancies in viscous dissipation (0.14 vs 0.59 mW) and conduit flow distribution.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: