{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: On the feasibility of ultrasound Doppler-based personalized hemodynamic modeling of the abdominal aorta.
{Author}: Fonken J;Gillissen M;van Engelen E;van Sambeek M;van de Vosse F;Lopata R;
{Journal}: Biomed Eng Online
{Volume}: 23
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2024 Jul 25
{Factor}: 3.903
{DOI}: 10.1186/s12938-024-01267-3
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Personalized modeling is a promising tool to improve abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture risk assessment. Computed tomography (CT) and quantitative flow (Q-flow) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are widely regarded as the gold standard for acquiring patient-specific geometry and velocity profiles, respectively. However, their frequent utilization is hindered by various drawbacks. Ultrasound is used extensively in current clinical practice and offers a safe, rapid and cost-effective method to acquire patient-specific geometries and velocity profiles. This study aims to extract and validate patient-specific velocity profiles from Doppler ultrasound and to examine the impact of the velocity profiles on computed hemodynamics.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Pulsed-wave Doppler (PWD) and color Doppler (CD) data were successfully obtained for six volunteers and seven patients and employed to extract the flow pulse and velocity profile over the cross-section, respectively. The US flow pulses and velocity profiles as well as generic Womersley profiles were compared to the MRI velocities and flows. Additionally, CFD simulations were performed to examine the combined impact of the velocity profile and flow pulse.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Large discrepancies were found between the US and MRI velocity profiles over the cross-sections, with differences for US in the same range as for the Womersley profile. Differences in flow pulses revealed that US generally performs best in terms of maximum flow, forward flow and ratios between forward and backward flow, whereas it often overestimates the backward flow. Both spatial patterns and magnitude of the computed hemodynamics were considerably affected by the prescribed velocity boundary conditions. Larger errors and smaller differences between the US and generic CFD cases were observed for patients compared to volunteers.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>These results show that it is feasible to acquire the patient-specific flow pulse from PWD data, provided that the PWD acquisition could be performed proximal to the aneurysm region, and resulted in a triphasic flow pattern. However, obtaining the patient-specific velocity profile over the cross-section using CD data is not reliable. For the volunteers, utilizing the US flow profile instead of the generic flow profile generally resulted in improved performance, whereas this was the case in more than half of the cases for the patients.