Comparison of Fluid Dynamics Variations Between Chimney and Fenestrated Endografts for Pararenal Aneurysms Repair: A Patient Specific Computational Study as Motivation for Clinical Decision-Making
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2019
Comparison of Fluid Dynamics Variations Between Chimney and Fenestrated Endografts for Pararenal Aneurysms Repair: A Patient Specific Computational Study as Motivation for Clinical Decision-Making
Limited data exist concerning the fluid dynamic changes induced by endovascular aortic repair with fenestrated and chimney graft modalities in pararenal aneurysms. We aimed to investigate and compare the wall shear stress (WSS) and flow dynamics for the branch vessels before and after endovascular aortic repair with fenestrated and chimney techniques.
Methods:
Modeling was done for patient specific pararenal aortic aneurysms employing fenestrated and chimney grafts (Materialise Mimics 10.0) before and after the endovascular procedure, using computed tomography scans of patients. Surface and spatial grids were created using the ANSYS CFD meshing software 2019 R2. Assessment of blood flow, streamlines, and WSS before and after aneurysm repair was performed.
Results:
The endovascular repair with chimney grafts leaded to a 43% to 53% reduction in perfusion in renal arteries. In fenestrated reconstruction, we observed a 15% reduced perfusion in both renal arteries. In both cases, we observed a decrease in the recirculation phenomena of the aorta after endovascular repair. Concerning the grafts of the renal arteries, we observed in both the transverse and longitudinal axes low WSS regions with simultaneous recirculation of the flow 1 cm distal to the ostium sites in both aortic graft models. High WSS regions appeared in the sites of ostium.
Conclusions:
We observed reduced renal perfusion in chimney grafts compared to fenestrated grafts, probably caused by the long and kinked characteristics of these devices.
DonasKPLeeJTLachatMTorselloGVeithFJ; PERICLES investigators. Collected world experience about the performance of the snorkel/chimney endovascular technique in the treatment of complex aortic pathologies: the PERICLES registry. Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):546–553.
2.
VerhoevenELKatsargyrisAOikonomouKKouvelosGRennerHRitterW. Fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as a first line treatment option to treat short necked, juxtarenal, and suprarenal aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(6):775–781.
3.
YaoguoYZhongCLeiKYaowenX.Treatment of complex aortic aneurysms with fenestrated endografts and chimney stent repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. Vascular. 2017;25(1):92–100.
4.
GeorgakarakosEManopoulosCLazaridesMKTsangarisS. Occlusion of parallel/bridging stent-grafts in the treatment of complex aneurysms: a purely technical issue…Or not? (Commentary). J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22(3):401–405.
5.
BannoHCochennecFMarzelleJBecqueminJP. Comparison of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney graft techniques for pararenal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(1):31–39.
6.
ZambranoBAGharahiHLimCet al.Association of intraluminal thrombus, hemodynamic forces, and abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion using longitudinal CT Images. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(5):1502–1514.
7.
TricaricoRHeYLaquianLet al.Hemodynamic and anatomic predictors of renovisceral stent-graft occlusion following chimney endovascular repair of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(6):880–888.
8.
CasciaroMEDottoriJEl-BattiSet al.Effects on aortoiliac fluid dynamics after endovascular sealing of abdominal aneurysms. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2018;52(8):621–628.
9.
WellsPN. Ultrasound in vascular pathologies. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(6):849–857.
10.
GillRW.Measurement of blood flow by ultrasound: accuracy and sources of error. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1985;11(4):625–641.
11.
HoskinsPR. Ultrasound techniques for measurement of blood flow and tissue motion. Biorheology. 2002;39(3-4):451–459.
12.
HoskinsPR. A review of the measurement of blood velocity and related quantities using Doppler ultrasound. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1999;213(5):391–400.
13.
WillinkR.EvansDH. Statistical bias and variance in blood flow estimation by spectral analysis of Doppler signals. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995;21(7):919–935.
14.
WomersleyJR. Method for the calculation of velocity, rate of flow and viscous drag in arteries when the pressure gradient is known. J Physiol. 127(3):553–563.
15.
FraserKHMeagherSBlakeJREassonWJHoskinsPR. Characterization of an abdominal aortic velocity waveform in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008;34(1):73–80.
16.
Van CanneytKSwillensALovstakkenLAntigaLVerdonckPSegersP. The accuracy of ultrasound volume flow measurements in the complex flow setting of a forearm vascular access. J Vasc Access. 2013;14(3):281–290.
17.
FrimanOHennemuthAHarloffABockJMarklMPeitgenHO. Probabilistic 4D blood flow tracking and uncertainty estimation. Med Image Anal. 2011;15(5):720–728.
18.
NilssonABlochKMTogerJHeibergEStahlbergF. Accuracy of four-dimensional phase-contrast velocity mapping for blood flow visualizations: a phantom study. Acta Radiol. 2013;54(6):663–671.
19.
RaptisAXenosMTzirtzilakisEMatsagkasM. Finite element analysis of magnetohydrodynamic effects on blood flow in an aneurysmal geometry. Phys Fluids. 2014;26(10):101901.
20.
TzirtzilakisEE. A mathematical model for blood flow in magnetic field. Phys Fluids. 2005;17(7):077103.
21.
Vignon-ClementelIFigueroaCAJansenKETaylorCA. Outflow boundary conditions for three-dimensional finite element modeling of blood flow and pressure in arteries. Comput Method Appl M. 2006;195(29-32):3776–3796.
22.
PirolaSChengZJarralOAet al.On the choice of outlet boundary conditions for patient-specific analysis of aortic flow using computational fluid dynamics. J Biomech. 2017;60:15–21.
23.
LesASShaddenSCFigueroaCAet al.Quantification of hemodynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms during rest and exercise using magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(4):1288–1313.
24.
PerktoldKThurnerEKennerT. Flow and stress characteristics in rigid walled and compliant carotid artery bifurcation models. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1994;32(1):19–26.
25.
PerktoldKRappitschG. Computer simulation of local blood flow and vessel mechanics in a compliant carotid artery bifurcation model. J Biomech. 1995;28(7):845–856.
26.
MalvèMGarcíaAOhayonJMartínezMA. Unsteady blood flow and mass transfer of a human left coronary artery bifurcation: FSI vs. CFD. Int Commun Heat Mass. 2012;39(6):745–751.
27.
LadichEButanyJVirmaniR. Aneurysms of the aorta: ascending, thoracic and abdominal and their management. In: BujaLMButanyJ (eds). Cardiovascular Pathology. 4th ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2016. Chapter 5.
28.
TsamisAKrawiecJTVorpDA. Elastin and collagen fibre microstructure of the human aorta in ageing and disease: a review. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(83):20121004.
29.
ThubrikarMAl-SoudiJRobicsekF. Wall stress studies of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a clinical model. Ann Vasc Surg. 2001;15(3):355–366.
30.
HeCMRoachMR. The composition and mechanical properties of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20(1):6–13.
31.
RaghavanMLWebsterMWVorpDA. Ex vivo biomechanical behavior of abdominal aortic aneurysm: assessment using a new mathematical model. Ann Biomed Eng. 1996;24(5):573–582.
32.
SuhGYLesASTenfordeASet al.Quantification of particle residence time in abdominal aortic aneurysms using magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39(2):864–883.
33.
ShekTLTseLWNabovatiAAmonCH. Computational fluid dynamics evaluation of the cross-limb stent graft configuration for endovascular aneurysm repair. J Biomech Eng. 2012;134(12):121002.
34.
O’RourkeMJ.McCulloughJP.KellyS. An investigation of the relationship between hemodynamics and thrombus deposition within patient-specific models of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2012;226(7):548–564.
35.
SinghSDXuXYWoodNBet al.Aortic flow patterns before and after personalised external aortic root support implantation in Marfan patients. J Biomech. 2016;49(1):100–111.
36.
KandailHHamadyMXuXY. Comparison of blood flow in branched and fenestrated stent-grafts for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22(4):578–590.
37.
FigueroaCATaylorCAYehVChiouAJZarinsCK. Effect of curvature on displacement forces acting on aortic endografts: a 3-dimensional computational analysis. J Endovasc Ther. 2009;16(3):284–294.
FogelsonALNeevesKB. Fluid mechanics of blood clot formation. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 2015;47:377–403.
40.
SheriffJBluesteinDGirdharGJestyJ. High-shear stress sensitizes platelets to subsequent low-shear conditions. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(4):1442–1450.
41.
WoottonDMKuDN. Fluid mechanics of vascular systems, diseases, and thrombosis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 1999;1:299–329.
42.
GoldsmithHLTurittoVT. Rheological aspects of thrombosis and haemostasis: basic principles and applications. ICTH Report—Subcommittee on Rheology of the International Committee on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Thromb Haemost. 1986;55(3):415–435.
43.
HathcockJJ. Flow effects on coagulation and thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26(8):1729–1737.
44.
FusterVTopolEJNabelEG. Coronary Thrombosis (Chapter 33) & The Role of Rheology in Atherothrombotic Coronary Artery Disease (Chapter 39) in Atherothrombosis and Coronary Artery Disease. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005:1636.
45.
ArzaniASuhGYDalmanRLShaddenSC. A longitudinal comparison of hemodynamics and intraluminal thrombus deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2014;307(12):H1786–H1795.
46.
NautaFJHLauKDArthursCJet al.Computational fluid dynamics and aortic thrombus formation following thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1914–1921.
