| Literature DB >> 28011839 |
Christoph M Augustin1,2, Andrew Crozier1, Aurel Neic1, Anton J Prassl1, Elias Karabelas1, Tiago Ferreira da Silva3, Joao F Fernandes3, Fernando Campos1,3, Titus Kuehne3, Gernot Plank4.
Abstract
AIMS: Models of blood flow in the left ventricle (LV) and aorta are an important tool for analysing the interplay between LV deformation and flow patterns. Typically, image-based kinematic models describing endocardial motion are used as an input to blood flow simulations. While such models are suitable for analysing the hemodynamic status quo, they are limited in predicting the response to interventions that alter afterload conditions. Mechano-fluidic models using biophysically detailed electromechanical (EM) models have the potential to overcome this limitation, but are more costly to build and compute. We report our recent advancements in developing an automated workflow for the creation of such CFD ready kinematic models to serve as drivers of blood flow simulations. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Computer model; Left ventricular electromechanics ; Personalization
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28011839 PMCID: PMC5386137 DOI: 10.1093/europace/euw369
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Europace ISSN: 1099-5129 Impact factor: 5.214
Patient characteristics from MRI, ECG and invasive catheter pressure recordings including end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction (EF), heart rate (HR), QRS duration and the maximum rate of rise of pressure
| Sex | Age (years) | Disease | EDV (mL) | ESV (mL) | EF (%) | HR (1/min) | QRS (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | F | 9 | CoA | 67 .9 | 22 .1 | 67 .5 | 64 .1 | 90 | 1 .97 |
| Case 2 | M | 15 | AVD | 199 .6 | 50 .0 | 74 .9 | 80 .7 | 171 | – |
| Case 3 | M | 10 | CoA | 81 .9 | 21 .8 | 73 .4 | 92 .6 | 104 | 2 .66 |
| Case 4 | M | 15 | CoA | 111 .2 | 29 .8 | 73 .2 | 89 .3 | 88 | 2 .20 |
Note that AVD patients were not catheterized and as such no pressure recordings are available .
Figure 1Illustration of the various stages of the anatomical model building workflow.
Figure 2LV model: (A) chosen sites of earliest activation at anatomical locations of the septal (), anterior () and posterior () fascicles. (B) Simulated activation sequence. (C) Comparison of computed (dashed line) and measured (solid line) ECGs. BiV model: (D) simulated activation sequence for the BiV (top) and reduced LV (bottom) model. (E) Influence of the RV on the ECG. Computed ECGs are shown for the BiV (blue) and the LV (red) models.
Figure 3(A) Representative anatomical model showing the mechanical boundary conditions. The end of the aortic root (yellow) and the end of a soft material block attached to the apex of the LV (blue) are fixed in space (purple). Outflow from the ventricle is regulated by a three-element Windkessel model (shown as a representative circuit). (B) Personalized anatomical models and pressure–volume (PV) loops for four patients.
Figure 4Validation of model predicted strain against MRI. (A) A slice of the model equivalent to the plane acquired in tagged MRI was extracted, and circumferential strain in this slice was evaluated from the model predicted deformations. (B) Model predicted circumferential strain was averaged over the slice and plotted over systole (red). These strains were compared with strains evaluated from tagged MRI (blue). This validation was performed for cases 3 and 4 only, as no tagged MRI was acquired in cases 1 and 2.
Figure 5Transmural variability of fiber strain at varying depths from the epi- (0%) to endocardium (100%) along a transmural section of the mid lateral LV wall.