The influence of model order reduction on the computed fractional flow reserve using parameterized coronary geometries

• Published in: Journal of biomechanics Vol. 82; pp. 313 - 323
• Main Authors: Gashi, K., Bosboom, E.M.H., van de Vosse, F.N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 03.01.2019; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Accuracy; Asymmetry; Cardiovascular disease; Computational fluid dynamics; Computer applications; Computing time; Curvature; Diagnostic systems; Fractional flow reserve; Geometry; Lesions; Mathematical models; Model accuracy; Model order reduction; Model reduction; Steady flow; Stenosis; Tapering; Three dimensional flow; Three dimensional models; Two dimensional flow; Two dimensional models; Uncertainty analysis; Uncertainty quantification; Uncertainty quantification; Model order reduction; Computational fluid dynamics; Fractional flow reserve
• ISSN: 0021-9290; 1873-2380
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.11.008

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models combined with patient-specific imaging data are used to non-invasively predict functional significance of coronary lesions. This approach to predict the fractional flow reserve (FFR) is shown to have a high diagnostic accuracy when comparing against invasively measured FFR. However, one of the main drawbacks is the high computational effort needed for preprocessing and computations. Hence, uncertainty quantification may become unfeasible. Reduction of complexity is desirable, computationally inexpensive models with high diagnostic accuracy are preferred. We present a parametric comparison study for three types of CFD models (2D axisymmetric, Semi-3D and 3D) in which we study the impact of model reduction on three models on the predicted FFR. In total 200 coronary geometries were generated for seven geometrical characteristics e.g. stenosis severity, stenosis length and vessel curvature. The effect of time-averaged flow was investigated using unsteady, mean steady and a root mean square (RMS) steady flow. The 3D unsteady model was regarded as reference model. Results show that when using an unsteady or RMS flow, predicted FFR hardly varies between models contrary to using average flows. The 2D model with RMS flow has a high diagnostic accuracy (0.99), reduces computational time by a factor 162,000 and the introduced model error is well below the clinical relevant differences. Stenosis severity, length, curvature and tapering cause most discrepancies when using a lower order model. An uncertainty analysis showed that this can be explained by the low variability that is caused by variations in stenosis asymmetry.