Sensitivity of patient-specific physiological and pathological aortic hemodynamics to the choice of outlet boundary condition in numerical models

Tianai Wang , Christine Quast , Florian Bönner , Tobias Zeus , Malte Kelm , Teresa Lemainque , Ulrich Steinseifer , Michael Neidlin
{"title":"Sensitivity of patient-specific physiological and pathological aortic hemodynamics to the choice of outlet boundary condition in numerical models","authors":"Tianai Wang ,&nbsp;Christine Quast ,&nbsp;Florian Bönner ,&nbsp;Tobias Zeus ,&nbsp;Malte Kelm ,&nbsp;Teresa Lemainque ,&nbsp;Ulrich Steinseifer ,&nbsp;Michael Neidlin","doi":"10.1016/j.cmpbup.2025.100194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Outlet boundary conditions (OBC) play a pivotal role in all simulations of vascular flow. However, previous investigations of OBC impact on numerical aortic flow simulations were not yet comprehensive for the entirety of hemodynamic characteristics. They mainly investigated near-wall properties and velocity in physiological flow. Therefore, the aim of this work was to expand the sensitivity assessment to hemodynamic markers in the bulk flow to the choice of OBC for a physiological and pathological aortic flow field.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Image-based computational models of subject-specific aortic geometries were created. Temporally and spatially resolved inlet velocity profiles derived from 4D Flow MRI were implemented. Three types of OBCs were compared: zero pressure, loss coefficients and three-element Windkessel. Their influence on velocity, near-wall properties and bulk flow quantities were analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Velocity and near-wall parameters in the ascending aorta are largely insensitive to the OBC choice. However, bulk flow parameters, in particular the helicity field, are highly sensitive throughout the entire aortic domain with differences of up to 600 % between models. The relative sensitivity to OBC drops for pathological flows, as the influence of more complex inlet profiles increases.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While the sensitivity of velocity and near-wall parameters to OBC choice is insignificant when only the ascending aorta is assessed, our study proposes a more thorough discernment once bulk flow parameters are of interest. Different degrees of boundary condition complexity are required to determine the hemodynamic properties of interest accurately. A support tool is presented to determine the case-dependent minimum requirement for inlet and outlet boundary conditions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72670,"journal":{"name":"Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666990025000187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Outlet boundary conditions (OBC) play a pivotal role in all simulations of vascular flow. However, previous investigations of OBC impact on numerical aortic flow simulations were not yet comprehensive for the entirety of hemodynamic characteristics. They mainly investigated near-wall properties and velocity in physiological flow. Therefore, the aim of this work was to expand the sensitivity assessment to hemodynamic markers in the bulk flow to the choice of OBC for a physiological and pathological aortic flow field.

Material and methods

Image-based computational models of subject-specific aortic geometries were created. Temporally and spatially resolved inlet velocity profiles derived from 4D Flow MRI were implemented. Three types of OBCs were compared: zero pressure, loss coefficients and three-element Windkessel. Their influence on velocity, near-wall properties and bulk flow quantities were analyzed.

Results

Velocity and near-wall parameters in the ascending aorta are largely insensitive to the OBC choice. However, bulk flow parameters, in particular the helicity field, are highly sensitive throughout the entire aortic domain with differences of up to 600 % between models. The relative sensitivity to OBC drops for pathological flows, as the influence of more complex inlet profiles increases.

Conclusion

While the sensitivity of velocity and near-wall parameters to OBC choice is insignificant when only the ascending aorta is assessed, our study proposes a more thorough discernment once bulk flow parameters are of interest. Different degrees of boundary condition complexity are required to determine the hemodynamic properties of interest accurately. A support tool is presented to determine the case-dependent minimum requirement for inlet and outlet boundary conditions.
数值模型中患者特异性生理和病理主动脉血流动力学对出口边界条件选择的敏感性
目的出口边界条件(OBC)在所有血管流动模拟中起着关键作用。然而,先前关于腹主动脉动脉粥样斑块对主动脉血流数值模拟影响的研究尚未全面反映整个血流动力学特征。他们主要研究了生理流动的近壁特性和速度。因此,这项工作的目的是扩大对大流量血流动力学标志物的敏感性评估,以选择生理和病理主动脉流场的OBC。材料和方法建立基于图像的受试者主动脉几何形状计算模型。从4D Flow MRI中提取的进口速度曲线进行了时间和空间分辨。比较了三种OBCs:零压、损失系数和三元风筒。分析了它们对速度、近壁特性和总体流量的影响。结果升主动脉流速和近壁参数对OBC的选择基本不敏感。然而,整体流量参数,特别是螺旋场,在整个主动脉区域是高度敏感的,模型之间的差异高达600%。随着更复杂的进口剖面的影响增加,病理流动对OBC的相对敏感性下降。结论当仅评估升主动脉时,流速和近壁参数对OBC选择的敏感性不显著,但我们的研究表明,一旦对容积流量参数感兴趣,就可以更彻底地识别OBC。不同程度的边界条件复杂性需要准确地确定感兴趣的血流动力学性质。提出了一种辅助工具来确定与情况有关的进出口边界条件的最小要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信