ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2022
Numerical modeling of residual type B aortic dissection: longitudinal analysis of favorable and unfavorable evolution.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Fluid-Structure Interaction Computational Study of Residual Aortic Dissection to Investigate the Influence of Mechanical Behaviour of Wall and Flap on Flows.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Impact of Residual Intimal Flap Displacement Post-TEVAR on TBAD Haemodynamics in Compliant, Patient-specific CFD Simulations Informed by MRI.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Mechanisms of aortic dissection: From pathological changes to experimental andProgress in materials science · 2025Article
- Investigating the role of thrombosis and false lumen orbital orientation in the hemodynamics of Type B aortic dissection.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Transfer learning on physics-informed neural networks for tracking the hemodynamics in the evolving false lumen of dissected aorta.Nexus (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Non-invasive estimation of the parameters of a three-element windkessel model of aortic arch arteries in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Volume Analysis to Predict the Long-Term Evolution of Residual Aortic Dissection after Type A Repair.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Residual type B aortic dissection was numerically investigated to highlight the contribution of biomechanical parameters to the pathology's evolution. Patient-specific geometries from cases involving both favorable and unfavorable evolution were modeled to assess their hemodynamic features. This original approach was supported by a longitudinal study confirming the association between morphological changes, hemodynamic features, adverse clinical outcomes, and CT-angioscan observations on the same patient. Comparing one patient with unfavorable evolution with one with favorable one, we identify potential biomechanical indicators predictive of unfavorable evolution: (i) a patent false lumen with a flow rate above 50% of inlet flow rate; (ii) high wall shear stress above 18 Pa at entry tears, and above 10 Pa at some regions of the false lumen wall; (iii) low time-averaged wall shear stress in distal false lumen below 0.5 Pa; (iv) vortical structure dynamics. Although these comparisons could only be conducted on 2 patients and need to be confirmed by a larger number of cases, our findings point to these hemodynamic markers as possible candidates for early evaluation of the pathology's evolution towards an unfavorable scenario. Graphical Abstract Correlation between hemodynamics index and thrombus initiation for unfavorable case. ET
Indexed as
Identifiers
35076858What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.