Fluid structure interaction (FSI) is defined as interaction of the structures with contacting fluids. The aortic valve experiences the interaction with blood flow in systolic phase. In this study, we have tried to predict the hemodynamics of blood flow through a normal and stenotic aortic valve in two relaxation and exercise conditions using a three-dimensional FSI method.
Methods:
The aorta valve was modeled as a three-dimensional geometry including a normal model and two others with 25% and 50% stenosis. The geometry of the aortic valve was extracted from CT images and the models were generated by MMIMCS software and then they were implemented in ANSYS software. The pulsatile flow rate was used for all cases and the numerical simulations were conducted based on a time-dependent domain.
Results:
The obtained results including the velocity, pressure, and shear stress contours in different systolic time sequences were explained and discussed. The maximum blood flow velocity in relaxation phase was obtained 1.62 m/s (normal valve), 3.78 m/s (25% stenosed valve), and 4.73 m/s (50% stenosed valve). In exercise condition, the maximum velocities are 2.86, 4.32, and 5.42 m/s respectively. The maximum blood pressure in relaxation phase was calculated 111.45 mmHg (normal), 148.66 mmHg (25% stenosed), and 164.21 mmHg (50% stenosed). However, the calculated values in exercise situation were 129.57, 163.58, and 191.26 mmHg.
The validation of the predicted results was also conducted using existing literature.
Conclusions:
We believe that such model are useful tools for biomechanical experts. The further studies should be done using experimental data and the data are implemented on the boundary conditions for better comparison of the results.
LabrosseMRLoboKBellerC.Structural analysis of the natural aortic valve in dynamics: from unpressurized to physiologically loaded. J Biomech2010; 43: 1916–1922.
2.
BahrasemanHGLanguriEMYahyapourjalalyN, et al. Fluid-structure interaction modeling of aortic valve stenosis at different heart rates. Acta Bioeng Biomech2016; 18: 11–20.
3.
SadeghpourFFatouraeeNNavidbakhshM.Haemodynamic of blood flow through stenotic aortic valve. J Med Eng Technol2017; 41: 108–114.
4.
SegarraEMasache CevallosJD.Comparative analysis between native, stenotic and mechanical aortic valves using FSI (Fluid Structure Interaction) module. De Mayo De2017; 24: 156.
5.
ZhuCSeoJ-HMittalR.Computational modelling and analysis of haemodynamics in a simple model of aortic stenosis. J Fluid Mech2018; 851: 23–49.
6.
ToninatoRSalmonJMaria SusinF, et al. Physiological vortices in the sinuses of Valsalva: an in vitro approach for bio-prosthetic valves. J Biomech2016; 49: 2635–2643.
7.
Van PeltNCStewartRLeggetM, et al. Longitudinal left ventricular contractile dysfunction after exercise in aortic stenosis. Heart2007; 93: 732–738.
8.
VazifehdoostsalehADarjaniMBahmaniA.A three-dimensional fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model for estimating the heart energy consumption of blood flow through the aortic valve. Eng Solid Mech2020; 8: 271–284.
9.
WeinhausA. Anatomy of the human heart. In: IaizzoPA (ed.) Handbook of cardiac anatomy, physiology, and devices. Geneva: Springer, 2015, pp.61–88.
10.
WeinbergEJKaazempur MofradMR.Transient, three-dimensional, multiscale simulations of the human aortic valve. Cardiovasc Eng2007; 7: 140–155.
11.
WeinbergEJKaazempur MofradMR.A multiscale computational comparison of the bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in relation to calcific aortic stenosis. J Biomech2008; 41: 3482–3487.
12.
WaldSLiberzonAAvrahamiI.A numerical study of the hemodynamic effect of the aortic valve on coronary flow. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2018; 17: 319–338.
13.
WeeseJLunguAPetersJ, et al. CFD and Bernoulli-based pressure drop estimates: a comparison using patient anatomies from heart and aortic valve segmentation of CT images. Med Phys2017; 44: 2281–2292.
14.
WeissRMOhashiMMillerJD, et al. Calcific aortic valve stenosis in old hypercholesterolemic mice. Circulation2006; 114: 2065–2069.
15.
YacoubMHGehlePChanV, et al. Late results of a valve-preserving operation in patients with aneurysms ofthe ascending aorta and root. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1998; 115: 1080–1090.
16.
ZakikhaniPHoRWangZ, et al. Biomechanical assessment of aortic valve stenosis: advantages and limitations. Med Nov Technol Devices2019; 2: 100009.
17.
SpühlerJHJanssonJJanssonN, et al. 3D fluid-structure interaction simulation of aortic valves using a unified continuum ALE FEM model. Front Physiol2018; 9: 363.
18.
PielesGESzanthoGRodriguesJCL, et al. Adaptations of aortic and pulmonary artery flow parameters measured by phase-contrast magnetic resonance angiography during supine aerobic exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol2014; 114: 1013–1023.
19.
TangoAMSalmonsmithJDucciA, et al. Validation and extension of a fluid-structure interaction model of the healthy aortic valve. Cardiovasc Eng Technol2018; 9: 739–751.
20.
AmindariASaltikLKirkkopruK, et al. Assessment of calcified aortic valve leaflet deformations and blood flow dynamics using fluid-structure interaction modeling. Inform Med Unlocked2017; 9: 191–199.
21.
Loureiro-GaMAVeigaCFdez-ManinG, et al. A biomechanical model of the pathological aortic valve: simulation of aortic stenosis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2020; 23: 303–311.
22.
ToninatoRSalmonJMaria SusinF, et al. Physiological vortices in the sinuses of Valsalva: An in vitro approach for bio-prosthetic valves. J Biomech2016; 49: 2635–2643.
HaleviRHamdanAMaromG, et al. Fluid-structure interaction modeling of calcific aortic valve disease using patient-specific three-dimensional calcification scans. Med Biol Eng Comput2016; 54: 1683–1694.
25.
DasPRimingtonHSmeetonN, et al. Determinants of symptoms and exercise capacity in aortic stenosis: a comparison of resting haemodynamics and valve compliance during dobutamine stress. Eur Heart J2003; 24: 1254–1263.
26.
RahimiKMohsenHKiranA, et al. Elevated blood pressure and risk of aortic valve disease: a cohort analysis of 5.4 million UK adults. Eur Heart J2018; 39: 3596–3603.
27.
RahmanOScottMBollacheE, et al. Interval changes in aortic peak velocity and wall shear stress in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging2019; 10: 1925-1934.
28.
NicosiaMACochranRPEinsteinDR, et al. A coupled fluid-structure finite element modle of the aortic valve and root. J Heart Valve Dis2003; 12: 781–789.
29.
Del VillarCPYottiREspinosaM, et al. The functional significance of paradoxical low-gradient aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging2017; 10: 29–39.
30.
HachichaZDumesnilJGBogatyP, et al. Paradoxical low-flow, low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation2007; 115: 2856–2864.
31.
MoosaviMHFatouraeeNKatoozianH, et al. Numerical simulation of blood flow in the left ventricle and aortic sinus using magnetic resonance imaging and computational fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2014; 17: 740–749.
32.
GramardBSaffordRBurnsE.Aortic stenosis: diagnosis and treatment. Am Acad Fam Physicians2016; 93: 371–378.
RassiAAljaroudiWNaderiS, et al. Exercise stress echocardiography in patients with aortic stenosis: impact of baseline diastolic dysfunction and functional capacityon mortality and aortic valve replacement. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther2013; 4: 205–215.
35.
PawadeTClavelMTribouilloyC, et al. Computed tomography aortic valve calcium scoring in patients with aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging2018; 11: e007146.
36.
GalliEFournetMChabanneC, et al. Prognostic value of left atrial reservoir function in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a 2D speckle-tracking echocardiographic study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging2015; 17: 533–541.
37.
GoublaireCOMelissopoulouMALoboDA, et al. Prognostic value of exercise-stress echocardiography in asymptomatic patients with aortic valve stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging2018; 6: 787–795.
38.
ZoghbiWFarmerKSotoJ, et al. Accurate noninvasive quantification of stenotic aortic valve area by Doppler echocardiography. Circulation1986; 73: 452–459.
39.
LarsenAClemmensenTWiggersH, et al. Left ventricular myocardial contractile reserve during exercise stress in healthy adults: a two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiographic study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr2018; 31: 1117–1126.
40.
RingleALevyFEnnezatP, et al. Relationship between exercise pressure gradient and haemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis. Arch Cardiovasc Dis2017; 110: 466-474.
41.
DulgheruRMagneJDavinL, et al. Left ventricular regional function and maximal exercise capacity in aortic stenosis. Eur Heart Cardiovasc Imaging J2016; 17: 217–224.
42.
SahraiARajaniRSeifertR, et al. Exercise testing in patients with asymptomatic moderate or severe aortic stenosis. Heart2018; 104: 1836–1842.
