| Literature DB >> 28188386 |
Anastasia Nasopoulou1, Anoop Shetty2, Jack Lee1, David Nordsletten1, C Aldo Rinaldi2, Pablo Lamata3, Steven Niederer4.
Abstract
Myocardial stiffness is a valuable clinical biomarker for the monitoring and stratification of heart failure (HF). Cardiac finite element models provide a biomechanical framework for the assessment of stiffness through the determination of the myocardial constitutive model parameters. The reported parameter intercorrelations in popular constitutive relations, however, obstruct the unique estimation of material parameters and limit the reliable translation of this stiffness metric to clinical practice. Focusing on the role of the cost function (CF) in parameter identifiability, we investigate the performance of a set of geometric indices (based on displacements, strains, cavity volume, wall thickness and apicobasal dimension of the ventricle) and a novel CF derived from energy conservation. Our results, with a commonly used transversely isotropic material model (proposed by Guccione et al.), demonstrate that a single geometry-based CF is unable to uniquely constrain the parameter space. The energy-based CF, conversely, isolates one of the parameters and in conjunction with one of the geometric metrics provides a unique estimation of the parameter set. This gives rise to a new methodology for estimating myocardial material parameters based on the combination of deformation and energetics analysis. The accuracy of the pipeline is demonstrated in silico, and its robustness in vivo, in a total of 8 clinical data sets (7 HF and one control). The mean identified parameters of the Guccione material law were [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) for the HF cases and [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) for the healthy case.Entities:
Keywords: Myocardium; Parameter estimation; Passive constitutive equations; Patient-specific modelling
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28188386 PMCID: PMC5480093 DOI: 10.1007/s10237-016-0865-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol ISSN: 1617-7940
Fig. 1Synthetic and clinical data sets used to evaluate CFs. a Synthetic data set was created by applying 30 equal pressure increments to an idealized finite element (FE) model to generate 30 deformed geometries ‘frames’, b the clinical data set combines an averaged pressure trace with FE meshes that capture the deformation calculated from registration of the cine MRI frames. Combined, these provide a displacement and pressure measurement for each MRI frame recorded over the cardiac cycle. In our analysis only the diastolic frames, where a passive inflation approximation is relevant, are utilized (marked as diastolic window of interest)
Summary of the patient cases (PC1-PC7) and healthy data set (HC) used
| Case | Age | Sex | EF (%) | ESV (ml) | EDV (ml) | EDP (kPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | 61 | M | 13.5 | 266 | 307 | 2.59 |
| PC2 | 61 | M | 6.2 | 348 | 371 | 1.21 |
| PC3 | 70 | M | 19.5 | 174 | 216 | 4.44 |
| PC4 | 76 | F | 32.3 | 86 | 127 | 1.84 |
| PC5 | 57 | F | 19.3 | 214 | 265 | 2.99 |
| PC6 | 65 | M | 29.7 | 122 | 173 | 1.17 |
| PC7 | 39 | M | 19.7 | 176 | 219 | 2.98 |
| HC | 36 | M |
|
| 134 | 1.89 |
Data not available
The abbreviations used are as follows: EF ejection fraction, ESV end-systolic volume, EDV end-diastolic volume all corresponding to the LV
Volumes were estimated from the personalized meshes following the p–V synchronization
Fig. 2Overview of the proposed parameter estimation pipeline. The required input consists of LV meshes and corresponding pressure values at the defined diastolic window of interest (covering the frames from minimum pressure until before the beginning of contraction, see also Fig. 1). The evaluation of the energy-based CF is entirely data based, while the evaluation of the geometry-based CF requires the performance of mechanical simulations with sweeps over and . The combination of the CFs ensures the unique estimation of these parameters
Fig. 5Proposed CF combination for unique parameter estimation emerging from the in silico analysis. a The landscape of the CF (residual in mm), which is the chosen geometric CF (see Sect. 2.4 for more details). b Landscape of the energy-based CF. A straight line pattern emerges that demonstrates the independence of the CF on and its ability to uniquely identify . c Unique parameter estimation with the combined use of the energy-based CF for parameter identification and the displacement norm CF. A superimposed black curve is fitted to the parameter combinations corresponding to the minimum CF residual values. The horizontal black line corresponds to the minimum energy-based CF residual. The identified parameters (indicated by the black circle at the intersection of the energy-based and geometry-based CF minimization lines) coincide with the ground truth values (, ). (Minimum and maximum CF residuals are shown in blue and red, respectively.)
Fig. 4Lines of minimal residual for all the geometry-based CFs in the synthetic dataset, after an exponential fitting (each line is an exponential fitting to the points of minimum residual, see Fig. 5c for an example). The result shows that the lines of minimal residual are nearly identical for all geometry-based CFs in silico
Fig. 6Lines of minimal residual from the geometry-based CF superimposed to the solution for the parameter resulting from the energy-based CF (flat line) in each of the 8 cases studied: a PC1, b PC2, c PC3, d PC4, e PC5, f PC6, g PC7, h HC. i Legend
Fig. 3Plots of landscapes of the examined geometry-based CF residuals over the and parameter space for the synthetic data set: a CF (residual in mm). b CF. c CF (residual in ml). d CF (residual in mm). e CF (residual in mm). f CF (residual in mm). The parameter grid used is shown as the empty black circles and is in the range of 200–5000 Pa for and 5–300 for . The parameter combinations yielding the minimum CF residual are plotted in blue. The white patches in the plots a–f signify parameter combinations that resulted in simulations that could not solve with the defined loading paradigm
Parameter estimation results from the application of the proposed pipeline to the clinical data sets
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | 61 | 5300 | 0.95 |
| PC2 | 61 | 820 | 1.96 |
| PC3 | 66 | 1960 | 2.56 |
| PC4 | 5 | 4780 | 5.61 |
| PC5 | 24 | 3140 |
|
| PC6 | 29 | 1460 | 1.91 |
| PC7 | 66 | 3300 | 1.18 |
| HC | 15 | 1700 | 3.35 |
In case PC5 there is no available residual as the forward simulation with the identified parameters did not converge.
The parameter is estimated by the energy-based CF and the parameter from the CF
Estimated , parameters for human myocardium from previous studies
| Case |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Human | |||
| Healthy |
| 43 | 1.78 |
| Patient 1 |
| 105 | 1.58 |
| Patient 2 |
| 95 | 1.39 |
| Healthy |
| 38 | – |
| HT |
| 38 | – |
| NI-HF |
| 38 | – |
Xi et al. (2013). Wang et al. (2013). Patients with hypertrophic LV. Patients with non-ischaemic HF with reduced EF. In these studies the scaling constant is defined as half the parameter in Eq. 1, and therefore, values reported here have been doubled for consistency in the results
Differences in stress calculated with parameters estimated by proposed method (A) and a previous one (Xi et al. 2013), where was fixed at 2000 Pa (B)
|
| Mean | Standard deviation (Pa) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Synth | 31.7 | 102.8 | 17 |
| PC1 |
| 47103.7 | 142 |
| PC2 |
| 34820092.3 | 25 |
| PC3 | 3127.3 | 52912.1 | 65 |
| PC4 |
| 284.9 | 10 |
| PC5 |
| 82.2 | 35 |
| PC6 | 32.6 | 114.1 | 22 |
| PC7 | 18.7 | 598 | 92 |
| HC | 45.7 | 972.7 | 13 |
Stress values are the deviatoric second Piola–Kirchhoff stress in the fibre direction () computed at end diastole. Estimated from fixing () are also reported for completeness
Fig. 7Cauchy stress vs stretch curves for an idealized 1-D extension along the fibre direction (up to 120% stretch) of an incompressible cube with the Guccione law using the material parameters estimated with the proposed methodology (A: energy-based & CFs) and a previous one where one of the parameters was assigned a certain value (B: fixed at 2000 Pa & CF as in Xi et al. (2013))
Sensitivity analysis results with respect to the identified parameter
| Data/model modification |
|
|---|---|
| Pressure | |
| +10% | 22 |
| −10% | 40 |
|
| |
| STD 5% | 28 |
| STD 10% | 26 |
| STD 20% | 37 |
| Ref. Fr. | |
| 1 | 26 |
| 2 | 22 |
| 5 | 3 |
| Fibres | |
| −/+ 90 | 29 |
|
| |
| 0.85-0.1-0.05 | 29 |
| 0.34-0.33-0.33 | 28 |
The ground truth value for is 30
Results of the estimation of with an energy cost function extended to consider the last 3 frames of diastolic filling (), instead of the 2 of the original formulation (referred to here as )
| Case | Synth | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | PC6 | PC7 | HC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 30 | 78 | 79 | 52 | 1 |
| 41 | 77 | 17 |
|
| 0 | 17 | 18 | 12 |
|
| 12 | 11 | 2 |
PC5 had data inconsistent with passive inflation, see text for further details
Parameter estimation results from the pressure-based CF (pCF), compared to the energy-based CF (eCF)
| Case |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synth | 30 | 1000 | 0 | 0 |
| PC1 | 18 | 21630 |
| 16330 |
| PC2 | 6 | 8335 |
| 7515 |
| PC3 |
| <885 | >54 | < |
| PC4 | 50 | 240 | 45 |
|
| PC5 | 60 | 1070 | 36 |
|
| PC6 | 130 | 275 | 101 |
|
| PC7 | >400 | <210 | >334 | < |
| HC | 50 | 310 | 45 |
|
Note that here is obtained in both cases by the L displacement norm
Results in PC3 and PC7 are bounded since the passive inflation simulation for larger values did not converge