Wallace H. Coulter School of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Institute of Computational Science and Cardiovascular Disease, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Ann Biomed Eng. 2018 Mar;46(3):404-416. doi: 10.1007/s10439-017-1950-1. Epub 2017 Nov 1.
Flow efficiency through the Fontan connection is an important factor related to patient outcomes. It can be quantified using either a simplified power loss or a viscous dissipation rate metric. Though practically equivalent in simplified Fontan circulation models, these metrics are not identical. Investigation is needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of these metrics for their use in in vivo or more physiologically-accurate Fontan modeling. Thus, simplified power loss and viscous dissipation rate are compared theoretically, computationally, and statistically in this study. Theoretical analysis was employed to assess the assumptions made for each metric and its clinical calculability. Computational simulations were then performed to obtain these two metrics. The results showed that apparent simplified power loss was always greater than the viscous dissipation rate for each patient. This discrepancy can be attributed to the assumptions derived in theoretical analysis. Their effects were also deliberately quantified in this study. Furthermore, statistical analysis was conducted to assess the correlation between the two metrics. Viscous dissipation rate and its indexed quantity show significant, strong, linear correlation to simplified power loss and its indexed quantity (p < 0.001, r > 0.99) under certain assumptions. In conclusion, viscous dissipation rate was found to be more advantageous than simplified power loss as a hemodynamic metric because of its lack of limiting assumptions and calculability in the clinic. Moreover, in addition to providing a time-averaged bulk measurement like simplified power loss, viscous dissipation rate has spatial distribution contours and time-resolved values that may provide additional clinical insight. Finally, viscous dissipation rate could maintain the relationship between Fontan connection flow efficiency and patient outcomes found in previous studies. Consequently, future Fontan hemodynamic studies should calculate both simplified power loss and viscous dissipation rate to maintain ties to previous studies, but also provide the most accurate measure of flow efficiency. Additional attention should be paid to the assumptions required for each metric.
血流通过 Fontan 连接的效率是与患者预后相关的一个重要因素。可以使用简化的功率损耗或粘性耗散率指标来量化。虽然在简化的 Fontan 循环模型中实际上是等效的,但这两个指标并不相同。需要进行研究以评估这些指标在体内或更生理准确的 Fontan 建模中的使用的优缺点。因此,本研究从理论、计算和统计学方面比较了简化的功率损耗和粘性耗散率。理论分析用于评估每个指标及其临床可计算性的假设。然后进行计算模拟以获得这两个指标。结果表明,对于每个患者,简化的功率损耗总是大于粘性耗散率。这种差异可归因于理论分析中得出的假设。本研究还故意量化了它们的影响。此外,进行了统计学分析以评估这两个指标之间的相关性。在某些假设下,粘性耗散率及其索引量与简化的功率损耗及其索引量之间存在显著、强、线性相关(p<0.001,r>0.99)。总之,粘性耗散率由于缺乏限制假设并且在临床上可计算,因此作为血流动力学指标比简化的功率损耗更具优势。此外,除了提供类似于简化功率损耗的时间平均整体测量之外,粘性耗散率还具有空间分布轮廓和时间分辨值,这可能提供额外的临床见解。最后,粘性耗散率可以维持以前的研究中发现的 Fontan 连接血流效率与患者预后之间的关系。因此,未来的 Fontan 血流动力学研究应该同时计算简化功率损耗和粘性耗散率,以保持与以前研究的联系,同时提供最准确的血流效率测量。应特别注意每个指标所需的假设。