Literature DB >> 22206423

The impact of simplified boundary conditions and aortic arch inclusion on CFD simulations in the mouse aorta: a comparison with mouse-specific reference data.

Bram Trachet1, Joris Bols, Gianluca De Santis, Stefaan Vandenberghe, Bart Loeys, Patrick Segers.   

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations allow for calculation of a detailed flow field in the mouse aorta and can thus be used to investigate a potential link between local hemodynamics and disease development. To perform these simulations in a murine setting, one often needs to make assumptions (e.g. when mouse-specific boundary conditions are not available), but many of these assumptions have not been validated due to a lack of reference data. In this study, we present such a reference data set by combining high-frequency ultrasound and contrast-enhanced micro-CT to measure (in vivo) the time-dependent volumetric flow waveforms in the complete aorta (including seven major side branches) of 10 male ApoE -/- deficient mice on a C57Bl/6 background. In order to assess the influence of some assumptions that are commonly applied in literature, four different CFD simulations were set up for each animal: (i) imposing the measured volumetric flow waveforms, (ii) imposing the average flow fractions over all 10 animals, presented as a reference data set, (iii) imposing flow fractions calculated by Murray's law, and (iv) restricting the geometrical model to the abdominal aorta (imposing measured flows). We found that - even if there is sometimes significant variation in the flow fractions going to a particular branch - the influence of using average flow fractions on the CFD simulations is limited and often restricted to the side branches. On the other hand, Murray's law underestimates the fraction going to the brachiocephalic trunk and strongly overestimates the fraction going to the distal aorta, influencing the outcome of the CFD results significantly. Changing the exponential factor in Murray's law equation from 3 to 2 (as suggested by several authors in literature) yields results that correspond much better to those obtained imposing the average flow fractions. Restricting the geometrical model to the abdominal aorta did not influence the outcome of the CFD simulations. In conclusion, the presented reference dataset can be used to impose boundary conditions in the mouse aorta in future studies, keeping in mind that they represent a subsample of the total population, i.e., relatively old, non-diseased, male C57Bl/6 ApoE -/- mice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22206423     DOI: 10.1115/1.4005479

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech Eng        ISSN: 0148-0731            Impact factor:   2.097


  10 in total

1.  The effect of inlet and outlet boundary conditions in image-based CFD modeling of aortic flow.

Authors:  Sudharsan Madhavan; Erica M Cherry Kemmerling
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 2.819

Review 2.  Computational Fluid Dynamics of Vascular Disease in Animal Models.

Authors:  Andrea Acuna; Alycia G Berman; Frederick W Damen; Brett A Meyers; Amelia R Adelsperger; Kelsey C Bayer; Melissa C Brindise; Brittani Bungart; Alexander M Kiel; Rachel A Morrison; Joseph C Muskat; Kelsey M Wasilczuk; Yi Wen; Jiacheng Zhang; Patrick Zito; Craig J Goergen
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  Haemodynamics in the mouse aortic arch computed from MRI-derived velocities at the aortic root.

Authors:  Mark A Van Doormaal; Asimina Kazakidi; Marzena Wylezinska; Anthony Hunt; Jordi L Tremoleda; Andrea Protti; Yvette Bohraus; Willy Gsell; Peter D Weinberg; C Ross Ethier
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  An optimal control approach to determine resistance-type boundary conditions from in-vivo data for cardiovascular simulations.

Authors:  Elisa Fevola; Francesco Ballarin; Laura Jiménez-Juan; Stephen Fremes; Stefano Grivet-Talocia; Gianluigi Rozza; Piero Triverio
Journal:  Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 2.648

5.  Experimental and Mouse-Specific Computational Models of the Fbln4SMKO Mouse to Identify Potential Biomarkers for Ascending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm.

Authors:  Marisa S Bazzi; Ramin Balouchzadeh; Shawn N Pavey; James D Quirk; Hiromi Yanagisawa; Vijay Vedula; Jessica E Wagenseil; Victor H Barocas
Journal:  Cardiovasc Eng Technol       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 2.305

Review 6.  Imaging of small animal peripheral artery disease models: recent advancements and translational potential.

Authors:  Jenny B Lin; Evan H Phillips; Ti'Air E Riggins; Gurneet S Sangha; Sreyashi Chakraborty; Janice Y Lee; Roy J Lycke; Clarissa L Hernandez; Arvin H Soepriatna; Bradford R H Thorne; Alexa A Yrineo; Craig J Goergen
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 5.923

7.  Haemodynamical stress in mouse aortic arch with atherosclerotic plaques: Preliminary study of plaque progression.

Authors:  P Assemat; K K Siu; J A Armitage; S N Hokke; A Dart; J Chin-Dusting; K Hourigan
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 7.271

8.  The comparative effects of high fat diet or disturbed blood flow on glycocalyx integrity and vascular inflammation.

Authors:  Ronodeep Mitra; Ju Qiao; Sudharsan Madhavan; Gerard L O'Neil; Bailey Ritchie; Praveen Kulkarni; Srinivas Sridhar; Anne L van de Ven; Erica M Cherry Kemmerling; Craig Ferris; James A Hamilton; Eno E Ebong
Journal:  Transl Med Commun       Date:  2018-11-22

Review 9.  Molecular imaging of experimental abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  Aneesh K Ramaswamy; Mark Hamilton; Rucha V Joshi; Benjamin P Kline; Rui Li; Pu Wang; Craig J Goergen
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-04-23

10.  Preclinical techniques to investigate exercise training in vascular pathophysiology.

Authors:  Gurneet S Sangha; Craig J Goergen; Steven J Prior; Sushant M Ranadive; Alisa M Clyne
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 5.125

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.