Aortic dissection simulation models for clinical support: fluid-structure interaction vs. rigid wall models

BACKGROUND

The management and prognosis of aortic dissection (AD) is often challenging and the use of personalised computational models is being explored as a tool to improve clinical outcome. Including vessel wall motion in such simulations can provide more realistic and potentially accurate results, but requires significant additional computational resources, as well as expertise. With clinical translation as the final aim, trade-offs between complexity, speed and accuracy are inevitable. The present study explores whether modelling wall motion is worth the additional expense in the case of AD, by carrying out fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations based on a sample patient case.

METHODS

Patient-specific anatomical details were extracted from computed tomography images to provide the fluid domain, from which the vessel wall was extrapolated. Two-way fluid-structure interaction simulations were performed, with coupled Windkessel boundary conditions and hyperelastic wall properties. The blood was modelled using the Carreau-Yasuda viscosity model and turbulence was accounted for via a shear stress transport model. A simulation without wall motion (rigid wall) was carried out for comparison purposes.

RESULTS

The displacement of the vessel wall was comparable to reports from imaging studies in terms of intimal flap motion and contraction of the true lumen. Analysis of the haemodynamics around the proximal and distal false lumen in the FSI model showed complex flow structures caused by the expansion and contraction of the vessel wall. These flow patterns led to significantly different predictions of wall shear stress, particularly its oscillatory component, which were not captured by the rigid wall model.

CONCLUSIONS

Through comparison with imaging data, the results of the present study indicate that the fluid-structure interaction methodology employed herein is appropriate for simulations of aortic dissection. Regions of high wall shear stress were not significantly altered by the wall motion, however, certain collocated regions of low and oscillatory wall shear stress which may be critical for disease progression were only identified in the FSI simulation. We conclude that, if patient-tailored simulations of aortic dissection are to be used as an interventional planning tool, then the additional complexity, expertise and computational expense required to model wall motion is indeed justified.

Development of a patient-specific simulation tool to analyse aortic dissections: assessment of mixed patient-specific flow and pressure boundary conditions

Aortic dissection has high morbidity and mortality rates and guidelines regarding surgical intervention are not clearly defined. The treatment of aortic dissection varies with each patient and detailed knowledge of haemodynamic and mechanical forces would be advantageous in the process of choosing a course of treatment. In this study, a patient-specific dissected aorta geometry is constructed from computed tomography scans. Dynamic boundary conditions are implemented by coupling a three element Windkessel model to the 3D domain at each outlet, in order to capture the essential behaviour of the downstream vasculature. The Windkessel model parameters are defined based on clinical data. The predicted minimum and maximum pressures are close to those measured invasively. Malperfusion is indicated and complex flow patterns are observed. Pressure, flow and wall shear stress distributions are analysed. The methodology presented here provides insight into the haemodynamics in a patient-specific dissected aorta and represents a development towards the use of CFD simulations as a diagnostic tool for aortic dissection.