↓ Skip to main content

Coronary fractional flow reserve measurements of a stenosed side branch: a computational study investigating the influence of the bifurcation angle

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coronary fractional flow reserve measurements of a stenosed side branch: a computational study investigating the influence of the bifurcation angle
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12938-016-0211-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Chiastra, Francesco Iannaccone, Maik J. Grundeken, Frank J. H. Gijsen, Patrick Segers, Matthieu De Beule, Patrick W. Serruys, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Antonius F. W. van der Steen, Jolanda J. Wentzel

Abstract

Coronary hemodynamics and physiology specific for bifurcation lesions was not well understood. To investigate the influence of the bifurcation angle on the intracoronary hemodynamics of side branch (SB) lesions computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed. A parametric model representing a left anterior descending-first diagonal coronary bifurcation lesion was created according to the literature. Diameters obeyed fractal branching laws. Proximal and distal main branch (DMB) stenoses were both set at 60 %. We varied the distal bifurcation angles (40°, 55°, and 70°), the flow splits to the DMB and SB (55 %:45 %, 65 %:35 %, and 75 %:25 %), and the SB stenoses (40, 60, and 80 %), resulting in 27 simulations. Fractional flow reserve, defined as the ratio between the mean distal stenosis and mean aortic pressure during maximal hyperemia, was calculated for the DMB and SB (FFRSB) for all simulations. The largest differences in FFRSB comparing the largest and smallest bifurcation angles were 0.02 (in cases with 40 % SB stenosis, irrespective of the assumed flow split) and 0.05 (in cases with 60 % SB stenosis, flow split 55 %:45 %). When the SB stenosis was 80 %, the difference in FFRSB between the largest and smallest bifurcation angle was 0.33 (flow split 55 %:45 %). By describing the ΔPSB-QSB relationship using a quadratic curve for cases with 80 % SB stenosis, we found that the curve was steeper (i.e. higher flow resistance) when bifurcation angle increases (ΔP = 0.451*Q + 0.010*Q (2) and ΔP = 0.687*Q + 0.017*Q (2) for 40° and 70° bifurcation angle, respectively). Our analyses revealed complex hemodynamics in all cases with evident counter-rotating helical flow structures. Larger bifurcation angles resulted in more pronounced helical flow structures (i.e. higher helicity intensity), when 60 or 80 % SB stenoses were present. A good correlation (R(2) = 0.80) between the SB pressure drop and helicity intensity was also found. Our analyses showed that, in bifurcation lesions with 60 % MB stenosis and 80 % SB stenosis, SB pressure drop is higher for larger bifurcation angles suggesting higher flow resistance (i.e. curves describing the ΔPSB-QSB relationship being steeper). When the SB stenosis is mild (40 %) or moderate (60 %), SB resistance is minimally influenced by the bifurcation angle, with differences not being clinically meaningful. Our findings also highlighted the complex interplay between anatomy, pressure drops, and blood flow helicity in bifurcations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 28 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,686,478
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#432
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,236
of 368,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.