Wallace H. Coulter School of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 387 Technology Circle, Suite 232, Atlanta, GA, 30313-2412, USA.
School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ann Biomed Eng. 2019 Nov;47(11):2258-2270. doi: 10.1007/s10439-019-02307-z. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations are widely utilized to assess Fontan hemodynamics that are related to long-term complications. No previous studies have systemically investigated the effects of using different inlet velocity profiles in Fontan simulations. This study implements real, patient-specific velocity profiles for numerical assessment of Fontan hemodynamics using CFD simulations. Four additional, artificial velocity profiles were used for comparison: (1) flat, (2) parabolic, (3) Womersley, and (4) parabolic with inlet extensions [to develop flow before entering the total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC)]. The differences arising from the five velocity profiles, as well as discrepancies between the real and each of the artificial velocity profiles, were quantified by examining clinically important metrics in TCPC hemodynamics: power loss (PL), viscous dissipation rate (VDR), hepatic flow distribution, and regions of low wall shear stress. Statistically significant differences were observed in PL and VDR between simulations using real and flat velocity profiles, but differences between those using real velocity profiles and the other three artificial profiles did not reach statistical significance. These conclusions suggest that the artificial velocity profiles (2)-(4) are acceptable surrogates for real velocity profiles in Fontan simulations, but parabolic profiles are recommended because of their low computational demands and prevalent applicability.
计算流体动力学 (CFD) 模拟广泛用于评估与长期并发症相关的 Fontan 血流动力学。以前的研究尚未系统地研究在 Fontan 模拟中使用不同入口速度剖面的影响。本研究使用 CFD 模拟通过实际的、特定于患者的速度剖面来实现 Fontan 血流动力学的数值评估。还使用了另外四个人为的速度剖面进行比较:(1) 平坦的,(2) 抛物线形的,(3) Womersley 型,和 (4) 带入口扩展的抛物线形[在进入全腔肺动脉连接 (TCPC) 之前发展流动]。通过检查 TCPC 血流动力学中的临床重要指标:功率损失 (PL)、粘性耗散率 (VDR)、肝血流分布和低壁面剪切应力区域,量化了五个速度剖面之间的差异以及真实和每个人为速度剖面之间的差异。在使用真实和平坦速度剖面的模拟中,PL 和 VDR 之间观察到统计学上的显著差异,但在使用真实速度剖面和其他三个人为剖面的模拟中,差异未达到统计学意义。这些结论表明,在 Fontan 模拟中,人为速度剖面 (2)-(4) 可以作为真实速度剖面的可接受替代品,但由于计算需求低和广泛适用性,建议使用抛物线型剖面。