| Literature DB >> 35047950 |
Sara Bridio1, Giulia Luraghi1, Jose F Rodriguez Matas1, Gabriele Dubini1, Giorgia G Giassi1, Greta Maggio1, Julia N Kawamoto1, Kevin M Moerman2, Patrick McGarry2, Praneeta R Konduri3,4, Nerea Arrarte Terreros3,4, Henk A Marquering3,4, Ed van Bavel3, Charles B L M Majoie4, Francesco Migliavacca1.
Abstract
The aim of this work is to propose a methodology for identifying relationships between morphological features of the cerebral vasculature and the outcome of in silico simulations of thrombectomy, the mechanical treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Fourteen patient-specific cerebral vasculature segmentations were collected and used for geometric characterization of the intracranial arteries mostly affected by large vessel occlusions, i.e., internal carotid artery (ICA), middle cerebral artery (MCA) and anterior cerebral artery (ACA). First, a set of global parameters was created, including the geometrical information commonly provided in the clinical context, namely the total length, the average diameter and the tortuosity (length over head-tail distance) of the intracranial ICA. Then, a more exhaustive geometrical analysis was performed to collect a set of local parameters. A total of 27 parameters was measured from each patient-specific vascular configuration. Fourteen virtual thrombectomy simulations were performed with a blood clot with the same length and composition placed in the middle of the MCA. The model of TREVO ProVue stent-retriever was used for all the simulations. Results from simulations produced five unsuccessful outcomes, i.e., the clot was not removed from the vessels. The geometric parameters of the successful and unsuccessful simulations were compared to find relations between the vascular geometry and the outcome. None of the global parameters alone or combined proved able to discriminate between positive and negative outcome, while a combination of local parameters allowed to correctly identify the successful from the unsuccessful simulations. Although these results are limited by the number of patients considered, this study indicates a promising methodology to relate patient-specific geometry to virtual thrombectomy outcome, which might eventually guide decision making in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.Entities:
Keywords: acute ischemic stroke; carotid siphon; digital twin; finite element analysis; insist; internal carotid artery
Year: 2021 PMID: 35047950 PMCID: PMC8757691 DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2021.719909
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med Technol ISSN: 2673-3129
Figure 1(A) Cerebral arteries mostly affected by AIS: the intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) which bifurcates at the T-junction into the middle cerebral artery (MCA) and the anterior cerebral artery (ACA). (B) The carotid siphon with the superior, anterior, posterior, and inferior bends. (C) Classes of siphon shape.
Figure 2The reconstructed vessel surfaces and centerlines of the 14 studied patients: the vascular segments of interest are ICA (green), MCA (red) and ACA (blue).
Figure 3Measurement of the angles at the T-junction: from left to right, αICA−MCA, αICA−ACA, αACA−MCA.
Figure 4ICA analysis: (A) division of the ICA in the 4 bends (superior, anterior, posterior, inferior) separated by the landmarks; (B) calculation of curvature of each bend as the radius of the fitting circle; (C) angles between bends; (D) distance between bends calculated at adjacent intersection points between the bend and the relative fitting circle; for the superior bend, the distance is calculated between the distal intersection point and the ICA endpoint.
Figure 5A clot of 14mm of length placed in the central MCA segment of the 14 patients.
Figure 6(A) Finite-element model of the TREVO ProVue 4–20mm stent-retriever. (B) The main steps of the thrombectomy simulation.
Global and Local parameters of the 14 patient-specific geometries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 46.0 | 51.2 | 48.7 | 49.2 | 34.9 | 24.4 | 23.4 | 52.9 | 48.3 | 30.2 | 50.3 | 45.3 | 17.2 | 51.1 | |
| 5.9 | 5.5 | 5.2 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 4.9 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 4.9 | 5.7 | 3.3 | 4.7 | |
| 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 1.2 | |
|
| S | S | U | V | V | C | C | U | U | U | U | S | – | U |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 123 | 153 | 119 | 115 | 142 | 124 | 158 | 122 | 163 | 136 | 136 | 128 | 132 | 114 | |
| 76 | 68 | 102 | 60 | 40 | 90 | 18 | 57 | 64 | 79 | 63 | 77 | 44 | 72 | |
| 131 | 136 | 124 | 152 | 168 | 144 | 176 | 131 | 132 | 144 | 140 | 123 | 139 | 125 | |
| 9.5 | 9.9 | 20.5 | 7.0 | 14.0 | 24.4 | 5.7 | 14.2 | 9.3 | 3.5 | 10.8 | 10.4 | 17.2 | 17.3 | |
| 17.3 | 20.7 | 16.9 | 17.2 | 12.0 | – | 17.7 | 17.2 | 24.0 | 15.4 | 18.5 | 17.1 | – | 15.9 | |
| 11.9 | 8.1 | 11.3 | 10.9 | 9.0 | – | – | 11.3 | 15.0 | 11.3 | 11.5 | 10.4 | – | 11.9 | |
| 7.2 | 12.6 | – | 14.0 | – | – | – | 10.1 | – | – | 9.5 | 7.4 | – | 6.0 | |
| 4.9 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | |
| 7.4 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 4.8 | 6.9 | – | 5.2 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 6.8 | – | 5.9 | |
| 6.3 | 6.6 | 5.7 | 7.7 | 6.0 | – | – | 4.8 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 6.4 | 6.5 | – | 5.5 | |
| 5.6 | 6.7 | – | 5.5 | – | – | – | 5.2 | – | – | 5.1 | 6.0 | – | 4.8 | |
| 8.7 | 4.0 | 10.6 | 3.3 | 8.1 | 8.5 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 43.6 | 8.3 | 7.9 | 10.7 | 16.0 | |
| 3.3 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 2.2 | – | 5.4 | 2.7 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.3 | – | 3.2 | |
| 2.4 | 2.2 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.3 | – | – | 4.3 | 10.4 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 3.0 | – | 2.8 | |
| 6.3 | 8.1 | – | 11.9 | – | – | – | 7.8 | – | – | 12.0 | 2.9 | – | 20.9 | |
| 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 | |
| 1.14 | 1.92 | 0.95 | 1.32 | 0.64 | – | 0.42 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 0.91 | 1.36 | 1.17 | – | 1.34 | |
| 0.68 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.11 | – | – | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.23 | 0.45 | – | 0.56 | |
| 0.04 | 0.05 | – | 0.04 | – | – | – | 0.04 | – | – | 0.05 | 0.26 | – | 0.03 | |
| 74 | 97 | 91 | 115 | 80 | – | 143 | 105 | 102 | 134 | 106 | 121 | – | 56 | |
| 94 | 127 | 153 | 170 | 90 | – | – | 155 | 145 | 169 | 116 | 142 | – | 152 | |
| 146 | 100 | – | 98 | – | – | – | 105 | – | – | 119 | 78 | – | 152 | |
| 1.8 | 3.6 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 6.7 | 0.6 | 4.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 3.64 | 7.1 | |
| 7.7 | 7.4 | 6.6 | 7.7 | 7.5 | – | 3.1 | 9.2 | 8.9 | 5.4 | 9.7 | 6.7 | – | 5.7 | |
| 5.6 | 5.3 | 7.0 | 7.8 | 6.1 | – | – | 6.5 | 4.6 | 6.0 | 9.5 | 6.6 | – | 5.4 | |
| 2.9 | 4.4 | – | 6.2 | – | – | – | 3.0 | – | – | 1.9 | 2.2 | – | 4.5 | |
| 3.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 5.3 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 3.7 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 4.4 | 2.2 | 2.4 | |
Figure 7Box plots representing the distribution of the local and global geometric parameters.
Figure 8Examples of virtual thrombectomies with positive (top) and negative (bottom) outcome.
Indices used for correlating the thrombectomy simulation outcome with global and local geometric parameters of the patient (+ positive outcome, –negative outcome).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | + |
| Dclot (mm) | 3.1 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Index1 Dclot/DICA | 0.53 | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.52 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 0.68 | 0.60 | 0.46 |
| Index2 Dclot/Dant | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.64 | 0.69 | – | 0.37 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 0.58 | – | 0.36 |
| rant (mm) | 3.3 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 2.2 | – | 5.4 | 2.7 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.3 | – | 3.2 |
Figure 9Best classification indices using the global and local geometric parameters (on the right, only 12 samples are shown because the segmentation for patients 6 and 13 did not include the anterior bend).
Figure 10Example of patients, 8 and 9, presenting very similar global parameters (green boxes), but different local parameters (red boxes), with a particular focus on the anterior bend (red tract of the ICA centerline), which resulted in different virtual thrombectomy outcomes.