Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32588092›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2020

Discrimination of intracranial aneurysm rupture status: patient-specific inflow boundary may not be a must-have condition in hemodynamic simulations.

Wenqiang Li, Shengzhang Wang, Zhongbin Tian, Wei Zhu, Yisen Zhang, Ying Zhang, Yang Wang, Kun Wang, Xinjian Yang, Jian Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wenqiang LiDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Shengzhang WangInstitute of Biomechanics, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhongbin TianDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Wei ZhuDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Yisen ZhangDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Ying ZhangDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Yang WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Kun WangDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Xinjian YangDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China.
Jian LiuDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute and Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NansanhuanXilu 119, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China. jianliu_ns@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5454-2847
Capital Medical University · CNFudan University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

Beijing Hospitals Authority Youth Programme QML20190503Innovation Fund of Nanchang University for Graduate Students cx2016312National Key Research and Development Plan of China 2016YFC1300800National Natural Science Foundation of China 81801156, 81801158, 81471167 and 81671139Special Research Project for Capital Health Development 2018-4-1077
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputational fluid dynamics (CFD) are important in evaluating the hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysm rupture, and the setting of inflow boundary conditions is critical. We evaluated intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics based on generalized versus patient-specific inflow boundary conditions to examine the effect of different hemodynamic results on the discrimination of intracranial aneurysm rupture status.

methodsWe enrolled 148 patients with 156 intracranial aneurysms. For each included aneurysm, we performed CFD simulation once based on patient-specific and once based on generalized inflow boundary conditions. First, we compared the hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms based on different inflow boundary conditions. Then, we divided the included aneurysms into a ruptured and unruptured group and compared the hemodynamics between the two groups under patient-specific and generalized inflow boundary conditions.

resultsFor the hemodynamic parameters using specific inflow boundary conditions, more complex flow (p = 0.002), larger minimum WSS (p = 0.024), lower maximum low WSS area (LSA) (p = 0.038), and oscillatory shear index (p = 0.002) were found. Furthermore, we compared the hemodynamics between ruptured and unruptured groups based on different inflow boundary conditions. We found that the significant hemodynamic parameters associated with rupture status were the same, including the proportion of aneurysms with flow complex and unstable flow and the minimum and maximum of LSA (p = 0.011, p = 0.003, p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively).

conclusionPatient-specific and generalized inflow boundary conditions of aneurysmal hemodynamics resulted in significant differences. However, the significant parameters associated with rupture status were the same in both conditions, indicating that patient-specific inflow boundary conditions may not be necessary for predicting rupture risk.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsHydrodynamicsPatient-Specific ModelingAneurysm, RupturedComputer SimulationEchoencephalographyHumansIntracranial AneurysmProspective StudiesComputational fluid dynamicsInflow boundary conditionsIntracranial aneurysmsRupturedTranscranial Doppler

Identifiers

PMID32588092
OpenAlexW3038057459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.