Grassl Kristina, Gasser Thomas C, Enzmann Florian K, Gratl Alexandra, Klocker Josef, Wippel David, Walcher David C, Gizewski Elke R, Wipper Sabine H
Department of Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
KTH Solid Mechanics, Department of Engineering Mechanics, School of Engineering Sciences, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Dec 26;15(1):25. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15010025.
: We aimed to predict patient-specific rupture risks and growth behaviors in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients using biomechanical evaluation with finite element analysis to establish an additional AAA repair threshold besides diameter and sex. : A total of 1219 patients treated between 2005 and 2024 (conservative and repaired AAAs) were screened for a pseudo-prospective single-center study. A total of 15 ruptured (rAAA) vs. 15 non-ruptured AAAs (control group) were matched for pre-rupture imaging (first rAAA) and the initial post-rupture imaging (second rAAA) with two images in the asymptomatic control group (first and second control). The matching criteria were as follows: aneurysm diameter, sex, and time period between imagings. The biomechanical properties were analyzed with the finite element method (A4clinicsRE, Vascops GmbH, Graz, Austria). : Both groups had the same median aortic diameter of 5.5 cm in the first imaging but had significantly different aneurysm progressions with 6.9 cm (5.5-9.4 cm) in the second rAAA vs. 6.0 cm (5.1-7.3 cm) in the second control group ( = 0.006). The first rAAA, compared to the first control, showed significantly a higher peak wall stress (PWS) (211.8 kPa vs. 180.5 kPa, = 0.029) and luminal diameter (43.5 mm vs. 35.3 mm; = 0.016). The second rAAA, compared to the matched second control, showed a significantly higher PWS (281.9 kPa vs. 187.4 kPa, = 0.002), luminal diameter (58.3 mm vs. 39.7 mm; = 0.007), PWRR (0.78 vs. 0.49, = 0.014) and RRED (79.8 vs. 56.5, = 0.014). The rAAA group showed over-proportional averages, over the observation time, and an increase in PWS (nearly 10× faster in rAAA) and luminal diameter (nearly 4× faster in rAAA) per month. : The finite element analysis of biomechanical properties could be used for the early prediction of an increased rupture risk in AAA patients. This was confirmed by matched imaging analyses before and after AAA rupture. Further multicenter data are needed to support these findings.
我们旨在通过有限元分析进行生物力学评估,预测腹主动脉瘤(AAA)患者特定的破裂风险和生长行为,以建立除直径和性别之外的额外AAA修复阈值。
对2005年至2024年期间接受治疗的1219例患者(保守治疗和修复的AAA患者)进行筛选,以开展一项伪前瞻性单中心研究。将15例破裂性AAA(rAAA)与15例未破裂性AAA(对照组)进行匹配,匹配对象为破裂前成像(首个rAAA)以及破裂后初始成像(第二个rAAA),无症状对照组有两张图像(首个和第二个对照)。匹配标准如下:动脉瘤直径、性别以及成像之间的时间段。采用有限元方法(A4clinicsRE,Vascops GmbH,格拉茨,奥地利)分析生物力学特性。
两组在首次成像时主动脉直径中位数均为5.5 cm,但动脉瘤进展存在显著差异,第二个rAAA为6.9 cm(5.5 - 9.4 cm),而第二个对照组为6.0 cm(5.1 - 7.3 cm)(P = 0.006)。首个rAAA与首个对照相比,显示出显著更高的峰值壁应力(PWS)(211.8 kPa对180.5 kPa,P = 0.029)和管腔直径(43.5 mm对35.3 mm;P = 0.016)。第二个rAAA与匹配的第二个对照相比,显示出显著更高的PWS(281.9 kPa对187.4 kPa,P = 0.002)、管腔直径(58.3 mm对39.7 mm;P = 0.007)、峰值壁应力与半径比值(PWRR)(0.78对0.49,P = 0.014)和相对半径增加率(RRED)(79.8对56.5,P = 0.014)。rAAA组在观察期内显示出成比例的平均值增加,且每月PWS增加(rAAA快近10倍)和管腔直径增加(rAAA快近4倍)。
生物力学特性的有限元分析可用于早期预测AAA患者破裂风险增加。AAA破裂前后的匹配成像分析证实了这一点。需要更多多中心数据来支持这些发现。