Key result
SimVascular and OpenFOAM produced similar flow rate, pressure, and vorticity results up to 0.25 seconds of simulated time, but wall shear stress values differed significantly.
Why the study?
Computational fluid dynamics provides non-invasive, patient-specific information for cardiovascular diagnosis and treatment, motivating a direct comparison between SimVascular and OpenFOAM blood flow simulations.
Population
1 10 year old patient with Coarctation of the Aorta who underwent end-to-side anastomosis
Comparison
SimVascular simulation vs OpenFOAM simulation
Design
Comparative computational simulation study
Authors
Loading...
Initial agreement supports interchangeable short-term CFD use in CoA; leaves open long-term solver divergence for clinical translation.
SimVascular and OpenFOAM provide comparable hemodynamic results for early simulation times, but differences in fluid property models and numerical stability highlight the need for careful software selection and validation in patient-specific CFD modeling.
Yogeswaran et al. (2021) studied Aortic Coarctation (n=1). OpenFOAM simulation vs. SimVascular simulation was evaluated on Difference in flow fields (flow rate, pressure, vorticity, and wall shear stress). SimVascular and OpenFOAM produced similar flow rate, pressure, and vorticity results up to 0.25 seconds of simulated time, but wall shear stress values differed significantly.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: