Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR

Background: Calculation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) using computed tomography (CT)-based 3D anatomical models and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become a common method to non-invasively assess the functional severity of atherosclerotic narrowing in coronary arteries. We examined the imp...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ernest W. C. Lo, Leon J. Menezes, Ryo Torii
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-03-01
Series:Fluids
Subjects:
CFD
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/4/2/60
id doaj-9fc5ddf8669441b79327edab81bc77f6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9fc5ddf8669441b79327edab81bc77f62020-11-25T00:35:05ZengMDPI AGFluids2311-55212019-03-01426010.3390/fluids4020060fluids4020060Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFRErnest W. C. Lo0Leon J. Menezes1Ryo Torii2UCL EPSRC CDT for Medical Imaging, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UKUCL Institute of Nuclear Medicine, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London W1T 7DN, UKDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UKBackground: Calculation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) using computed tomography (CT)-based 3D anatomical models and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become a common method to non-invasively assess the functional severity of atherosclerotic narrowing in coronary arteries. We examined the impact of various inflow boundary conditions on computation of FFR to shed light on the requirements for inflow boundary conditions to ensure model representation. Methods: Three-dimensional anatomical models of coronary arteries for four patients with mild to severe stenosis were reconstructed from CT images. FFR and its commonly-used alternatives were derived using the models and CFD. A combination of four types of inflow boundary conditions (BC) was employed: pulsatile, steady, patient-specific and population average. Results: The maximum difference of FFR between pulsatile and steady inflow conditions was 0.02 (2.4%), approximately at a level similar to a reported uncertainty level of clinical FFR measurement (3–4%). The flow with steady BC appeared to represent well the diastolic phase of pulsatile flow, where FFR is measured. Though the difference between patient-specific and population average BCs affected the flow more, the maximum discrepancy of FFR was 0.07 (8.3%), despite the patient-specific inflow of one patient being nearly twice as the population average. Conclusions: In the patients investigated, the type of inflow boundary condition, especially flow pulsatility, does not have a significant impact on computed FFRs in narrowed coronary arteries.https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/4/2/60blood flowCFDinflow boundary conditionscoronary artery stenosishaemodynamic risk indicator
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ernest W. C. Lo
Leon J. Menezes
Ryo Torii
spellingShingle Ernest W. C. Lo
Leon J. Menezes
Ryo Torii
Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
Fluids
blood flow
CFD
inflow boundary conditions
coronary artery stenosis
haemodynamic risk indicator
author_facet Ernest W. C. Lo
Leon J. Menezes
Ryo Torii
author_sort Ernest W. C. Lo
title Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
title_short Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
title_full Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
title_fullStr Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Inflow Boundary Conditions on the Calculation of CT-Based FFR
title_sort impact of inflow boundary conditions on the calculation of ct-based ffr
publisher MDPI AG
series Fluids
issn 2311-5521
publishDate 2019-03-01
description Background: Calculation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) using computed tomography (CT)-based 3D anatomical models and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become a common method to non-invasively assess the functional severity of atherosclerotic narrowing in coronary arteries. We examined the impact of various inflow boundary conditions on computation of FFR to shed light on the requirements for inflow boundary conditions to ensure model representation. Methods: Three-dimensional anatomical models of coronary arteries for four patients with mild to severe stenosis were reconstructed from CT images. FFR and its commonly-used alternatives were derived using the models and CFD. A combination of four types of inflow boundary conditions (BC) was employed: pulsatile, steady, patient-specific and population average. Results: The maximum difference of FFR between pulsatile and steady inflow conditions was 0.02 (2.4%), approximately at a level similar to a reported uncertainty level of clinical FFR measurement (3–4%). The flow with steady BC appeared to represent well the diastolic phase of pulsatile flow, where FFR is measured. Though the difference between patient-specific and population average BCs affected the flow more, the maximum discrepancy of FFR was 0.07 (8.3%), despite the patient-specific inflow of one patient being nearly twice as the population average. Conclusions: In the patients investigated, the type of inflow boundary condition, especially flow pulsatility, does not have a significant impact on computed FFRs in narrowed coronary arteries.
topic blood flow
CFD
inflow boundary conditions
coronary artery stenosis
haemodynamic risk indicator
url https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/4/2/60
work_keys_str_mv AT ernestwclo impactofinflowboundaryconditionsonthecalculationofctbasedffr
AT leonjmenezes impactofinflowboundaryconditionsonthecalculationofctbasedffr
AT ryotorii impactofinflowboundaryconditionsonthecalculationofctbasedffr
_version_ 1725310414759133184