Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36418603›Full record

ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2023

Examining the universality of the hemolysis power law model from simulations of the FDA nozzle using calibrated model coefficients.

Alberto Mantegazza, Nicolas Tobin, Keefe B Manning, Brent A Craven

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Toward Uncertainty-Aware Hemolysis Modeling: A Universal Approach to Address Experimental Variance.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modeling Flow in anbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  9. Modeling flow in anFrontiers in medical technology · 2023
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto MantegazzaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Nicolas TobinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Keefe B ManningDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Brent A CravenOffice of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA. brent.craven@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8474-4856
Pennsylvania State University · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

Modeling of Acute Ischemic Stroke for Improving Mechanical ThrombectomyR01HL146921 · NHLBI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI Francesco Costanzo, Brent Craven · 2020 to 2026
$3.3M
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health HL146921NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL146921
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is widely used to predict mechanical hemolysis in medical devices. The most popular hemolysis model is the stress-based power law model that is based on an empirical correlation between hemoglobin release from red blood cells (RBCs) and the magnitude of flow-induced stress and exposure time. Empirical coefficients are traditionally calibrated using data from experiments in simplified Couette-type blood-shearing devices with uniform-shear laminar flow and well-defined exposure times. Use of such idealized coefficients in simulations of real medical devices with complex hemodynamics is thought to be a primary reason for the historical inaccuracy of absolute hemolysis predictions using the power law model. Craven et al. (Biomech Model Mechanobiol 18:1005-1030, 2019) recently developed a CFD-based Kriging surrogate modeling approach for calibrating empirical coefficients in real devices that could potentially be used to more accurately predict absolute hemolysis. In this study, we use the FDA benchmark nozzle to investigate whether utilizing such calibrated coefficients improves the predictive accuracy of the standard Eulerian power law model. We first demonstrate the credibility of our CFD flow simulations by comparing with particle image velocimetry measurements. We then perform hemolysis simulations and compare the results with in vitro experiments. Importantly, the simulations use coefficients calibrated for the flow of a suspension of bovine RBCs through a small capillary tube, which is relatively comparable to the flow of bovine blood through the FDA nozzle. The results show that the CFD predictions of relative hemolysis in the FDA nozzle are reasonably accurate. The absolute predictions are, however, highly inaccurate with modified index of hemolysis values from CFD in error by roughly three orders of magnitude compared with the experiments, despite using calibrated model coefficients from a relatively similar geometry. We rigorously examine the reasons for the inaccuracy that include differences in the flow conditions in the hemolytic regions of each device and the lack of universality of the hemolysis power law model that is entirely empirical. Thus, while the capability to predict relative hemolysis is valuable for product development, further improvements are needed before the power law model can be relied upon to accurately predict the absolute hemolytic potential of a medical device.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesHemolysisAnimalsCattleComputer SimulationHemodynamicsHydrodynamicsModels, CardiovascularRheologyStress, MechanicalBlood damageHemolysisPower law model

Identifiers

PMID36418603
PMCPMC10101913
OpenAlexW4309874156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.