| Literature DB >> 30319438 |
Aashish Ahuja1, Jillian N Noblet2, Tony Trudnowski2, Bhavesh Patel1, Joshua F Krieger2, Sean Chambers2, Ghassan S Kassab1.
Abstract
Aortic dissection (AD) involves tearing of the medial layer, creating a blood-filled channel called false lumen (FL). To treat dissections, clinicians are using endovascular therapy using stent grafts to seal the FL. This procedure has been successful in reducing mortality but has failed in completely re-attaching the torn intimal layer. The use of computational analysis can predict the radial forces needed to devise stents that can treat ADs. To quantify the hyperelastic material behavior for therapy development, we harvested FL wall, true lumen (TL) wall, and intimal flap from the middle and distal part of five dissected aortas. Planar biaxial testing using multiple stretch protocols were conducted on tissue samples to quantify their deformation behavior. A novel non-linear regression model was used to fit data against Holzapfel-Gasser-Ogden hyperelastic strain energy function. The fitting analysis correlated the behavior of the FL and TL walls and the intimal flap to the stiffness observed during tensile loading. It was hypothesized that there is a variability in the stresses generated during loading among tissue specimens derived from different regions of the dissected aorta and hence, one should use region-specific material models when simulating type-B AD. From the data on material behavior analysis, the variability in the tissue specimens harvested from pigs was tabulated using stress and coefficient of variation (CV). The material response curves also compared the changes in compliance observed in the FL wall, TL wall, and intimal flap for middle and distal regions of the dissection. It was observed that for small stretch ratios, all the tissue specimens behaved isotropically with overlapping stress-stretch curves in both circumferential and axial directions. As the stretch ratios increased, we observed that most tissue specimens displayed different structural behaviors in axial and circumferential directions. This observation was very apparent in tissue specimens from mid FL region, less apparent in mid TL, distal FL, and distal flap tissues and least noticeable in tissue specimens harvested from mid flap. Lastly, using mixed model ANOVAS, it was concluded that there were significant differences between mid and distal regions along axial direction which were absent in the circumferential direction.Entities:
Keywords: Holzapfel–Gasser–Ogden; aortic dissection; layered model; material behavior; planar biaxial testing
Year: 2018 PMID: 30319438 PMCID: PMC6169260 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1An inverted aorta with dissection. An entry was initially created carefully in the descending thoracic aorta and propagated using forceps to the distal region of the aorta where a pocket of re-entry is created. Tissue specimens from two regions (mid and distal) are extracted and tested on planar biaxial testing machine for material characterization.
Figure 2Planar biaxial testing setup. A cruciform specimen is suspended using clamps which is stretched along x- and y-axes. The x-axis represents the circumferential direction while y-axis represents the axial direction.
Specifications of tissue sample and test protocols used for its material characterization.
| Pig 1 | Mid TL wall (1:1), |
| Mid Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Mid FL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal FL wall (1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1) | |
| Pig 2 | Mid TL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), |
| Mid Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Mid FL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal FL wall (1:1, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1) | |
| Pig 3 | Mid TL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), |
| Mid Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2), | |
| Mid FL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal FL wall (1:1), | |
| Distal Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1) | |
| Pig 4 | Mid TL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), |
| Mid Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2), | |
| Mid FL wall (1:1), | |
| Distal FL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1) | |
| Pig 5 | Mid TL wall (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1), |
| Mid Flap (1:1), | |
| Mid FL wall (1:1), | |
| Distal FL wall (1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1), | |
| Distal Flap (1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, 1.5:1, 2:1) |
Parameter estimation for mid true lumen wall.
| 1 | 1.76 | 78,219 | 201,440 | 1.52 | 87.09 | 0.2 |
| 2 | 1.75 | 60,707 | 230,300 | 3.2 | 89.95 | 0.29 |
| 3 | 1.70 | 53,816 | 117,670 | 3.02 | 0 | 0.28 |
| 4 | 1.75 | 51,191 | 188,950 | 1.11 | 2.86 | 0.32 |
| 5 | 1.86 | 54,702 | 110,450 | 2.32 | 61.31 | 0.22 |
Parameter estimation for distal flap.
| 1 | 0.4 | 103,140 | 61,969 | 4.1 | 62.4 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 0.34 | 171,740 | 661,830 | 8.05 | 86.5 | 0.3 |
| 3 | 0.43 | 78,686 | 239,090 | 3.18 | 89.9 | 0.3 |
| 4 | 0.29 | 63,554 | 77,013 | 4.76 | 83.4 | 0.11 |
| 5 | 0.47 | 55,960 | 78,560 | 2.86 | 89.9 | 0.19 |
Figure 3Circumferential/Axial Stress vs. Stretch relations for different regions of the dissected aorta.
Figure 4(A) Average Stress vs. Stretch for the different specimens harvested from the mid region (B) Average Stress vs. Stretch for the different specimens harvested from distal region of thoracic aorta.
Figure 5For all stretches, λθ, λ ≤ 1.25, the axial and circumferential stresses generated in the mid and distal regions.
Statistical data for circumferential region of mid TL.
| 1.05 | 0.10 |
| 1.10 | 0.13 |
| 1.15 | 0.18 |
| 1.2 | 0.17 |
| 1.25 | 0.19 |
| 1.3 | 0.26 |
| 1.35 | 0.25 |
Figure 6Circumferential stress vs. stretch comparison between averages of (Pigs 1 and 2) and (Pigs 3, 4, and 5) for mid flap specimens.
Parameter estimation for mid false lumen wall.
| 1 | 1.3 | 53,456 | 952,380 | 4.94 | 7.45 | 0.3 |
| 2 | 1.06 | 88,823 | 94,663 | 18.665 | 0.00 | 0.165 |
| 3 | 1.04 | 72,082 | 32,735 | 14.9 | 21.20 | 0.11 |
| 4 | 1.10 | 19,657 | 45,520 | 2.022 | 49.85 | 0 |
| 5 | 1.33 | 53,316 | 53,787 | 6.0417 | 0.80 | 0.22 |
Parameter estimation for mid flap.
| 1 | 0.58 | 92,963 | 230,290 | 13.90 | 87.1 | 0.33 |
| 2 | 0.59 | 73,144 | 235,075 | 7.86 | 68.7 | 0.3 |
| 3 | 0.54 | 64,042 | 212,120 | 4.99 | 23.5 | 0.32 |
| 4 | 0.70 | 52,072 | 125,430 | 5.87 | 53.9 | 0.26 |
| 5 | 0.47 | 45,588 | 149,880 | 1.42 | 55.6 | 0.21 |
Parameter estimation for distal false lumen wall.
| 1 | 1.24 | 72,996 | 20,894 | 9.01 | 66.5 | 0 |
| 2 | 1.17 | 31,299 | 64,299 | 5.44 | 66.5 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 0.87 | 44,479 | 229,920 | 5.02 | 22.3 | 0.3 |
| 4 | 0.85 | 45,167 | 200,820 | 9.84 | 87.7 | 0.27 |
| 5 | 1.01 | 58,489 | 90,846 | 4.78 | 48.1 | 0.21 |
Statistical data for axial region of mid TL.
| 1.05 | 0.39 |
| 1.10 | 0.34 |
| 1.15 | 0.35 |
| 1.2 | 0.36 |
| 1.25 | 0.34 |
| 1.3 | 0.37 |
| 1.35 | 0.37 |
| 1.4 | 0.38 |
Statistical data for circumferential region of mid FL.
| 1.05 | 0.36 |
| 1.10 | 0.38 |
| 1.15 | 0.46 |
| 1.2 | 0.66 |
| 1.25 | 0.73 |
Statistical data for axial region of mid FL.
| 1.05 | 0.30 |
| 1.10 | 0.20 |
| 1.15 | 0.19 |
| 1.2 | 0.17 |
| 1.25 | 0.25 |
Statistical data for circumferential region of mid flap.
| 1.05 | 0.32 |
| 1.10 | 0.28 |
| 1.15 | 0.27 |
| 1.2 | 0.33 |
| 1.25 | 0.42 |
| 1.3 | 0.16 |
| 1.35 | 0.20 |
| 1.4 | 0.28 |
Statistical data for axial region of mid flap.
| 1.05 | 0.12 |
| 1.10 | 0.09 |
| 1.15 | 0.10 |
| 1.2 | 0.12 |
| 1.25 | 0.11 |
| 1.3 | 0.15 |
| 1.35 | 0.30 |
| 1.4 | 0.11 |
Statistical data for circumferential region of distal FL.
| 1.05 | 0.07 |
| 1.10 | 0.24 |
| 1.15 | 0.28 |
| 1.2 | 0.27 |
| 1.25 | 0.33 |
| 1.3 | 0.33 |
| 1.35 | 0.48 |
Statistical data for axial region of distal FL.
| 1.05 | 0.26 |
| 1.10 | 0.26 |
| 1.15 | 0.32 |
| 1.2 | 0.47 |
| 1.25 | 0.89 |
Statistical data for circumferential region of distal flap.
| 1.05 | 0.55 |
| 1.10 | 0.51 |
| 1.15 | 0.49 |
| 1.2 | 0.57 |
| 1.25 | 0.64 |
| 1.3 | 0.74 |
Statistical data for axial region of distal flap.
| 1.05 | 0.22 |
| 1.10 | 0.26 |
| 1.15 | 0.29 |
| 1.2 | 0.39 |
| 1.25 | 0.42 |
| 1.3 | 0.51 |