Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
158 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Comparison of 1D and 3D Models for the Estimation of Fractional Flow Reserve (1805.11472v1)

Published 29 May 2018 in physics.med-ph and cs.CE

Abstract: In this work we propose to validate the predictive capabilities of one-dimensional (1D) blood flow models with full three-dimensional (3D) models in the context of patient-specific coronary hemodynamics in hyperemic conditions. Such conditions mimic the state of coronary circulation during the acquisition of the Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) index. Demonstrating that 1D models accurately reproduce FFR estimates obtained with 3D models has implications in the approach to computationally estimate FFR. To this end, a sample of 20 patients was employed from which 29 3D geometries of arterial trees were constructed, 9 obtained from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and 20 from intra-vascular ultrasound (IVUS). For each 3D arterial model, a 1D counterpart was generated. The same outflow and inlet pressure boundary conditions were applied to both (3D and 1D) models. In the 1D setting, pressure losses at stenoses and bifurcations were accounted for through specific lumped models. Comparisons between 1D models ($\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$) and 3D models ($\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$) were performed in terms of predicted $\text{FFR}$ value. Compared to $\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$, $\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$ resulted with a difference of 0.00$\pm$0.03 and overall predictive capability AUC, Acc, Spe, Sen, PPV and NPV of 0.97, 0.98, 0.90, 0.99, 0.82, and 0.99, with an FFR threshold of 0.8. We conclude that inexpensive $\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$ simulations can be reliably used as a surrogate of demanding $\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$ computations.

Citations (62)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.