| Literature DB >> 36003197 |
Pegah Ebrahimi1,2, David Youssef2, Gananjay Salve2, Julian Ayer2,3, Fariba Dehghani1, David F Fletcher1, David S Winlaw1,3.
Abstract
Objectives: Right ventricle to pulmonary artery (RV-PA) conduits are required for the surgical management of pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect and truncus arteriosus. Bioengineered RV-PA connections may address some of the shortcomings of homografts and xenografts, such as lack of growth potential and structural deterioration and may be manufactured to accommodate patient-specific anatomy. The aim of this study was to develop a methodology for in silico patient-specific design and analysis of RV-PA conduits.Entities:
Keywords: 3D, 3 dimensional; CFD, computational fluid dynamics; CHD, congenital heart disease; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PA, pulmonary artery; RV, right ventricle; WSS, wall shear stress; computational fluid dynamics; congenital heart disease; flow optimization; in silico design; mathematical modeling; right ventricular outflow tract
Year: 2020 PMID: 36003197 PMCID: PMC9390144 DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2020.02.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JTCVS Open ISSN: 2666-2736
Figure 1Three-dimensional models of the patients' hearts created by segmentation. Patients A-E, Pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect. Patients F-J, Truncus arteriosus.
Figure 2The geometry construction process. A, Constructing 3-dimensional model of the whole heart by performing segmentation on a patients' magnetic resonance imaging scan. B, Constructing conduit geometry by interpolating between extracted cross-sections. Right, Extracting crucial cross-sections. Left, The constructed geometry shows a good approximation of the original conduit.
Patient data used in diameter calculation
| Patient | Diagnosis | Age at first conduit | Type of first conduit | Size of first conduit (mm) | Age at imaging date (y) | PR before conduit replacement (%RF) | Time elapsed to conduit replacement (y) | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | BSA | Proposed midPA diameter range (mm) | Proposed conduit diameter (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | PA/VSD | 25 mo | Bovine jugular vein | 22 | 9 | Severe; 54 | 7 | 128 | 23.6 | 0.9 | 14.57-22.6 | 22 |
| B | PA/VSD | 12 mo | Aortic homograft | 19 | 10 | Moderate; 33 | 10.2 | 144 | 34 | 1.2 | 16.41-25.45 | 19 |
| C | PA/VSD | 7 mo | Pulmonary homograft | 12 | 9 | Moderate; 32 | 10.7 | 153 | 49 | 1.4 | 18.28-28.35 | 22 |
| D | PA/VSD | 7 mo | Nonvalved PTFE conduit | 12 | 3 | Severe; 41 | 3.2 | 94 | 14.2 | 0.6 | 12.01-18.62 | 16 |
| E | PA/VSD | 12 mo | Nonstented xenograft Medtronic Freestyle | 16 | 10 | Moderate; 32 | 10.8 | 132 | 30 | 0.7 | 15.61-24.22 | 18 |
| F | TA | 14 d | Nonvalved PTFE conduit | 10 | 3 | Severe; 43 | 2.9 | 84.3 | 11.4 | 0.5 | 11.1-17.21 | 17 |
| G | TA | 9 d | Aortic homograft | 12 | 4 | Severe; | 4 | 80 | 10 | 0.5 | 10.61-16.46 | 16 |
| H | TA | 12 d | Pulmonary homograft | 10 | 8 | Moderate; | 8.4 | 126 | 25.4 | 0.9 | 14.81-22.97 | 18 |
| I | TA | 3 d | Nonvalved PTFE tube conduit | 8 | 6 | Trivial; 3 | 6.2 | 112 | 18 | 0.7 | 13.22-20.51 | 17 |
| J | TA | 7 mo | Aortic homograft | 15 | 4 | Moderate; 34 | 4.5 | 100 | 15.4 | 0.7 | 12.41-19.62 | 16 |
PR, Pulmonary regurgitation; %RF, regurgitant fraction percent; BSA, body surface area; midPA, mid pulmonary artery; PA/VSD, pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect; PFTE, polytetrafluoroethylene; TA, truncus arteriosus.
Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn.
Figure 3An example of geometry modification. Left, Initial conduit. Right, Proposed geometry. PA, Pulmonary artery; RV, right ventricle.
Figure 4An example of surface meshing on 1 of the geometries.
Figure 5Demonstration of the parameters that define the velocity curve.
Figure 6Triangular velocity waveform and its Fourier series approximation for different number of terms. In this case, n = 3 provides sufficient accuracy.
Figure 7Comparison of rate of energy dissipation through the initial implants and proposed modified geometries over a cardiac cycle for patients A through J.
Figure 8Comparison of area-averaged wall shear stress (WSS) on the initial implants and proposed modified geometries over a cardiac cycle for patients A through J.
Figure 9Comparison of wall shear stress (WSS) distribution between initial (left) and modified geometries (right) for patients A though J at the beginning of the cardiac cycle.
Comparison of effective wall shear stress (WSS) and average power loss per cycle as described above for initial and modified geometries for all 10 patients
| Patient | Effective WSS on initial geometry (Pa) | Effective WSS on modified geometry (Pa) | Average power loss in initial geometry (W) | Average power loss in modified geometry (W) | Reduction in effective WSS (%) | Reduction in average power loss (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 13.39 | 9.97 | 5.13 | 0.650 | 25 | 87 |
| B | 13.46 | 9.41 | 1.92 | 1.07 | 30 | 44 |
| C | 12.8 | 7.26 | 1.99 | 0.423 | 43 | 78 |
| D | 16.3 | 10.2 | 1.61 | 0.645 | 37 | 60 |
| E | 20.3 | 10.5 | 9.96 | 2.16 | 48 | 78 |
| F | 13.02 | 10.58 | 1.54 | 1.17 | 23 | 24 |
| G | 18.1 | 11.82 | 6.99 | 1.38 | 35 | 80 |
| H | 14.93 | 9.54 | 1.65 | 0.977 | 36 | 40 |
| I | 9.2 | 4.03 | 0.247 | 0.078 | 56 | 68 |
| J | 17.2 | 11.5 | 3.93 | 1.14 | 33 | 71 |
WSS, Wall shear stress.