Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34419047›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering online2021

Assessment of turbulent blood flow and wall shear stress in aortic coarctation using image-based simulations.

Romana Perinajová, Joe F Juffermans, Jonhatan Lorenzo Mercado, Jean-Paul Aben, Leon Ledoux, Jos J M Westenberg, Hildo J Lamb, Saša Kenjereš

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Repeatability and reproducibility of various 4D Flow MRI postprocessing software programs in a multi-software and multi-vendor cross-over comparison study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Romana PerinajováDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. R.Perinajova-1@tudelft.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7930-2842
Joe F JuffermansDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jonhatan Lorenzo MercadoDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jean-Paul AbenPie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Leon LedouxPie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jos J M WestenbergDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hildo J LambDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Saša KenjerešDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLJ.M. Burgerscentrum · NLDelft University of Technology · NL

Funding

Hartstichting CVON2018-08-RADAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed turbulent flows through a phantom (a 180[Formula: see text] bend with narrowing) at peak systole and a patient-specific coarctation of the aorta (CoA), with a pulsating flow, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). For MRI, a 4D-flow MRI is performed using a 3T scanner. For CFD, the standard [Formula: see text], shear stress transport [Formula: see text], and Reynolds stress (RSM) models are applied. A good agreement between measured and simulated velocity is obtained for the phantom, especially for CFD with RSM. The wall shear stress (WSS) shows significant differences between CFD and MRI in absolute values, due to the limited near-wall resolution of MRI. However, normalized WSS shows qualitatively very similar distributions of the local values between MRI and CFD. Finally, a direct comparison between in vivo 4D-flow MRI and CFD with the RSM turbulence model is performed in the CoA. MRI can properly identify regions with locally elevated or suppressed WSS. If the exact values of the WSS are necessary, CFD is the preferred method. For future applications, we recommend the use of the combined MRI/CFD method for analysis and evaluation of the local flow patterns and WSS in the aorta.

Indexed as

Aortic CoarctationBlood Flow VelocityHemodynamicsHumansHydrodynamicsMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, CardiovascularStress, MechanicalAortaCoarctationComputational fluid dynamicsMagnetic resonance imagingPhantomTurbulence

Identifiers

PMID34419047
PMCPMC8379896
OpenAlexW3194814069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.