ArticlePloS one2022
A realistic arteriovenous dialysis graft model for hemodynamic simulations.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Silico, Patient-Specific Assessment of Local Hemodynamic Predictors and Neointimal Hyperplasia Localisation in an Arteriovenous Graft.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Hemodynamics and Wall Mechanics of Vascular Graft Failure.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2024Review
- Adaptation process of decellularized vascular grafts as hemodialysis accessRegenerative biomaterials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe hemodynamic benefit of novel arteriovenous graft (AVG) designs is typically assessed using computational models that assume highly idealized graft configurations and/or simplified boundary conditions representing the peripheral vasculature. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether idealized AVG models are suitable for hemodynamic evaluation of new graft designs, or whether more realistic models are required.
methodsAn idealized and a realistic, clinical imaging based, parametrized AVG geometry were created. Furthermore, two physiological boundary condition models were developed to represent the peripheral vasculature. We assessed how graft geometry (idealized or realistic) and applied boundary condition models of the peripheral vasculature (physiological or distal zero-flow) impacted hemodynamic metrics related to AVG dysfunction.
resultsAnastomotic regions exposed to high WSS (>7, ≤40 Pa), very high WSS (>40 Pa) and highly oscillatory WSS were larger in the simulations using the realistic AVG geometry. The magnitude of velocity perturbations in the venous segment was up to 1.7 times larger in the realistic AVG geometry compared to the idealized one. When applying a (non-physiological zero-flow) boundary condition that neglected blood flow to and from the peripheral vasculature, we observed large regions exposed to highly oscillatory WSS. These regions could not be observed when using either of the newly developed distal boundary condition models.
conclusionHemodynamic metrics related to AVG dysfunction are highly dependent on the geometry and the distal boundary condition model used. Consequently, the hemodynamic benefit of a novel graft design can be misrepresented when using idealized AVG modelling setups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.