Standardized viscosity as a source of error in computational fluid dynamic simulations of cerebral aneurysms

Author:

Fillingham Patrick1,Belur Neethi1,Sweem Rebecca1,Barbour Michael C.2,Marsh Laurel M. M.2,Aliseda Alberto2,Levitt Michael R.123

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neurological Surgery University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

2. Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

3. Department of Radiology University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundComputational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are a powerful tool for studying cerebral aneurysms, capable of evaluating hemodynamics in a way that is infeasible with imaging alone. However, the difficulty of incorporating patient‐specific information and inherent obstacles of in vivo validation have limited the clinical usefulness of CFD of cerebral aneurysms. In this work we investigate the effect of using standardized blood viscosity values in CFD simulations of cerebral aneurysms when compared to simulations of the same aneurysms using patient‐specific viscosity values derived from hematocrit measurements.PurposeThe objective of this work is to determine the level of error, on average, that is, caused by using standardized values of viscosity in CFD simulations of cerebral aneurysms. By quantifying this error, we demonstrate the need for incorporating patient‐specific viscosity in future CFD investigations of cerebral aneurysms.MethodsCFD simulations of forty‐one cerebral aneurysms were conducted using patient‐specific boundary conditions. For each aneurysm two simulations were conducted, one utilizing patient‐specific blood viscosity derived from hematocrit measurements and another using a standardized value for blood viscosity. Hemodynamic parameters such as wall shear stress (WSS), wall shear stress gradient (WSSG), and the oscillatory shear index (OSI) were calculated for each of the simulations for each aneurysm. Paired t‐tests for differences in the time‐averaged maps of these hemodynamic parameters between standardized and patient‐specific viscosity simulations were conducted for each aneurysm. Bland–Altman analysis was used to examine the cohort‐wide changes in the hemodynamic parameters. Subjects were broken into two groups, those with higher than standard viscosity and those with lower than standard viscosity. An unpaired t‐test was used to compare the percent change in WSS, WSSG, and OSI between patient‐specific and standardized viscosity simulations for the two cohorts. The percent changes in hemodynamic parameters were correlated against the direction and magnitude of percent change in viscosity, aneurysm size, and aneurysm location. For all t‐tests, a Bonferroni‐corrected significance level of 0.0167 was used.Results63.2%, 41.5%, and 48.7% of aneurysms showed statistically significant differences between patient‐specific and standardized viscosity simulations for WSS, WSSG, and OSI respectively. No statistically significant difference was found in the percent changes in WSS, WSSG, and OSI between the group with higher than standard viscosity and those with lower than standard viscosity, indicating an increase in viscosity can cause either an increase or decrease in each of the hemodynamic parameters. On a study‐wide level no significant bias was found in either direction for WSS, WSSG, or OSI between the simulation groups due to the bidirectional effect of changing viscosity. No correlation was found between percent change of viscosity and percent change of WSS, WSSG, or OSI, meaning an after‐the‐fact correction for patient‐specific viscosity is not feasible.ConclusionStandardizing viscosity values in CFD of cerebral aneurysms has a large and unpredictable impact on the calculated WSS, WSSG, and OSI when compared to CFD simulations of the same aneurysms using a patient‐specific viscosity. We recommend implementing hematocrit‐based patient‐specific blood viscosity values for all CFD simulations of cerebral aneurysms.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3