Key result
Steady flow matches pulsatile flow for vFFR computation regardless of the number of stenoses.
Why the study?
The accuracy of virtual fractional flow reserve (vFFR) and the complexity of hyperemic flow simulation in multiple sequential stenoses coronary arteries are not clearly understood.
Steady flow simulations may be used instead of pulsatile flow conditions in vFFR computation, potentially simplifying its clinical application for assessing coronary stenoses.
Linear pressure-flow correlation in idealized stenoses may simplify vFFR; leaves open validation in patient-specific anatomies.
Virtual fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has been evaluated as an adjunct to invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the light of its operational and economic benefits. The accuracy of vFFR and the complexity of hyperemic flow simulation are still not clearly understood. This study investigates the flow-pressure relation in an idealised multiple sequential stenoses coronary artery model via numerical and experimental approaches. Pressure drop is linearly correlated with flow rate irrespective of the number of stenosis. Computational fluid dynamics results are in good agreement with the experimental data, demonstrating reasonable accuracy of vFFR. It was also found that the difference between data obtained with steady and pulsatile flows is negligible, indicating the steady flow may be used instead of pulsatile flow conditions in vFFR computation. This study adds to the current understanding of vFFR and may improve its clinical applicability as an adjunct to invasively determined FFR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2017) studied Coronary artery disease. Steady flow vs. Pulsatile flow was evaluated on Pressure drop across multiple sequential stenoses. Pressure drop is linearly correlated with flow rate irrespective of the number of stenoses, and the difference between steady and pulsatile flows is negligible, indicating steady flow may be used for vFFR computation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: