Caterina Dalmaso, Fredrik Eikeland Fossan, Anders Tjellaug Bråten, Lucas Omar Müller
{"title":"Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis for Non-invasive Model-Based Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Prediction","authors":"Caterina Dalmaso, Fredrik Eikeland Fossan, Anders Tjellaug Bråten, Lucas Omar Müller","doi":"10.1002/cnm.3898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The main objectives of this work are to validate a 1D-0D unsteady solver with a distributed stenosis model for the patient-specific estimation of resting haemodynamic indices and to assess the sensitivity of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) predictions to uncertainties in input parameters. We considered 52 patients with stable coronary artery disease, for which 81 invasive iFR measurements were available. We validated the performance of our solver compared to 3D steady-state and transient results and invasive measurements. Next, we used a polynomial chaos approach to characterise the uncertainty in iFR predictions based on the inputs associated with boundary conditions (coronary flow, compliance and aortic/left ventricular pressures) and vascular geometry (radius). Agreement between iFR and the ratio between cardiac cycle averaged distal and aortic pressure waveforms (resting <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mi>P</mi>\n <mi>d</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>P</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {P}_d/{P}_a $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>) obtained through 1D-0D and 3D models was satisfactory, with a bias of 0.0–0.005 (±0.016–0.026). The sensitivity analysis showed that iFR estimation is mostly affected by uncertainties in vascular geometry and coronary flow (steady-state parameters). In particular, our 1D-0D method overestimates invasive iFR measurements, with a bias of −0.036 (±0.101), indicating that better flow estimates could significantly improve our modelling pipeline. Conversely, we showed that standard pressure waveforms could be used for simulations, since the impact of uncertainties related to inlet-pressure waveforms on iFR prediction is negligible. Furthermore, while compliance is the most relevant transient parameter, its effect on iFR estimates is negligible compared to that of vascular geometry and flow. Finally, we observed a strong correlation between iFR and resting <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mi>P</mi>\n <mi>d</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>P</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {P}_d/{P}_a $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>, suggesting that steady-state simulations could replace unsteady simulations for iFR prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":50349,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cnm.3898","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The main objectives of this work are to validate a 1D-0D unsteady solver with a distributed stenosis model for the patient-specific estimation of resting haemodynamic indices and to assess the sensitivity of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) predictions to uncertainties in input parameters. We considered 52 patients with stable coronary artery disease, for which 81 invasive iFR measurements were available. We validated the performance of our solver compared to 3D steady-state and transient results and invasive measurements. Next, we used a polynomial chaos approach to characterise the uncertainty in iFR predictions based on the inputs associated with boundary conditions (coronary flow, compliance and aortic/left ventricular pressures) and vascular geometry (radius). Agreement between iFR and the ratio between cardiac cycle averaged distal and aortic pressure waveforms (resting ) obtained through 1D-0D and 3D models was satisfactory, with a bias of 0.0–0.005 (±0.016–0.026). The sensitivity analysis showed that iFR estimation is mostly affected by uncertainties in vascular geometry and coronary flow (steady-state parameters). In particular, our 1D-0D method overestimates invasive iFR measurements, with a bias of −0.036 (±0.101), indicating that better flow estimates could significantly improve our modelling pipeline. Conversely, we showed that standard pressure waveforms could be used for simulations, since the impact of uncertainties related to inlet-pressure waveforms on iFR prediction is negligible. Furthermore, while compliance is the most relevant transient parameter, its effect on iFR estimates is negligible compared to that of vascular geometry and flow. Finally, we observed a strong correlation between iFR and resting , suggesting that steady-state simulations could replace unsteady simulations for iFR prediction.
这项工作的主要目的是验证具有分布式狭窄模型的1D-0D非定常解算器,用于患者特定的静息血流动力学指标估计,并评估瞬时无波比(iFR)预测对输入参数不确定性的敏感性。我们纳入了52例稳定冠状动脉疾病患者,其中81例有创iFR测量可用。我们将求解器的性能与三维稳态和瞬态结果以及侵入性测量结果进行了比较。接下来,我们使用多项式混沌方法来表征iFR预测中的不确定性,该预测基于与边界条件(冠状动脉流量、顺应性和主动脉/左心室压力)和血管几何形状(半径)相关的输入。通过1D-0D和3D模型获得的心脏周期平均远端和主动脉压波形之比(静息P d / P a $$ {P}_d/{P}_a $$)与iFR之间的一致性令人满意,偏差为0.0-0.005(±0.016-0.026)。敏感性分析表明,iFR估计主要受血管几何形状和冠状动脉血流(稳态参数)的不确定性的影响。特别是,我们的1D-0D方法高估了侵入性iFR测量值,偏差为-0.036(±0.101),这表明更好的流量估计可以显著改善我们的管道建模。相反,我们表明标准压力波形可以用于模拟,因为与进口压力波形相关的不确定性对iFR预测的影响可以忽略不计。此外,虽然顺应性是最相关的瞬态参数,但与血管几何形状和流量相比,它对iFR估计的影响可以忽略不计。最后,我们观察到iFR与静息P d / P a $$ {P}_d/{P}_a $$之间存在很强的相关性,这表明稳态模拟可以取代非稳态模拟来预测iFR。
期刊介绍:
All differential equation based models for biomedical applications and their novel solutions (using either established numerical methods such as finite difference, finite element and finite volume methods or new numerical methods) are within the scope of this journal. Manuscripts with experimental and analytical themes are also welcome if a component of the paper deals with numerical methods. Special cases that may not involve differential equations such as image processing, meshing and artificial intelligence are within the scope. Any research that is broadly linked to the wellbeing of the human body, either directly or indirectly, is also within the scope of this journal.