ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2024
Patient-Specific Haemodynamic Analysis of Virtual Grafting Strategies in Type-B Aortic Dissection: Impact of Compliance Mismatch.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left ventricular remodeling and modification of aortic stiffness after endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Mechanisms of aortic dissection: From pathological changes to experimental andProgress in materials science · 2025Article
- Computational Fluid Dynamics-Driven Comparison of Endovascular Treatment Strategies for Penetrating Aortic Ulcer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCompliance mismatch between the aortic wall and Dacron Grafts is a clinical problem concerning aortic haemodynamics and morphological degeneration. The aortic stiffness introduced by grafts can lead to an increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. This study quantifies the impact of compliance mismatch by virtually testing different Type-B aortic dissection (TBAD) surgical grafting strategies in patient-specific, compliant computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA post-operative case of TBAD was segmented from computed tomography angiography data. Three virtual surgeries were generated using different grafts; two additional cases with compliant grafts were assessed. Compliant CFD simulations were performed using a patient-specific inlet flow rate and three-element Windkessel outlet boundary conditions informed by 2D-Flow MRI data. The wall compliance was calibrated using Cine-MRI images. Pressure, wall shear stress (WSS) indices and energy loss (EL) were computed.
resultsIncreased aortic stiffness and longer grafts increased aortic pressure and EL. Implementing a compliant graft matching the aortic compliance of the patient reduced the pulse pressure by 11% and EL by 4%. The endothelial cell activation potential (ECAP) differed the most within the aneurysm, where the maximum percentage difference between the reference case and the mid (MDA) and complete (CDA) descending aorta replacements increased by 16% and 20%, respectively.
conclusionThis study suggests that by minimising graft length and matching its compliance to the native aorta whilst aligning with surgical requirements, the risk of LV hypertrophy may be reduced. This provides evidence that compliance-matching grafts may enhance patient outcomes.
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.