Modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Patient specific vs general approaches based on finite element analysis

E. A. Ovcharenko, K. U. Klyshnikov, A. E. Yuzhalin, G. V. Savrasov, A. N. Kokov, A. V. Batranin, V. I. Ganyukov, Y. A. Kudryavtseva

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There are two main methods used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) FEA modeling for medical devices development: patient specific and general approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of both approaches have never been compared in a single study. Method: Here we propose a bioinformatic algorithm to evaluate the accuracy of patient specific and generalized FEA approaches with regards to proximity configuration of the implanted stent reconstructed by computed tomography. In addition, in this study we also assessed the impact of the level of detail on FEA accuracy in the patient specific approach. Results: Our results demonstrate that in certain cases, the generalized approach can ensure the same accuracy as the patient specific approach. Therefore, considering high cost effectiveness of the generalized approach, we identify it as more feasible in the context of TAVR. Furthermore, we suggest that high level of detail can improve the reproducibility of modeling results in the patient specific approach. Conclusions: Our findings may help medical engineers to better understand the peculiarities of both approaches and therefore make the right decision when choosing a particular approach for computer modeling. Future studies are required to validate our observations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)29-36
Number of pages8
JournalComputers in Biology and Medicine
Volume69
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2016

Fingerprint

Finite Element Analysis
Finite element method
Stents
Bioinformatics
Cost effectiveness
Tomography
Engineers
Computational Biology
Reproducibility of Results
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Aortic root
  • Calcification
  • Finite element analysis
  • Transcatheter heart valves

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement : Patient specific vs general approaches based on finite element analysis. / Ovcharenko, E. A.; Klyshnikov, K. U.; Yuzhalin, A. E.; Savrasov, G. V.; Kokov, A. N.; Batranin, A. V.; Ganyukov, V. I.; Kudryavtseva, Y. A.

In: Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 69, 01.02.2016, p. 29-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ovcharenko, E. A. ; Klyshnikov, K. U. ; Yuzhalin, A. E. ; Savrasov, G. V. ; Kokov, A. N. ; Batranin, A. V. ; Ganyukov, V. I. ; Kudryavtseva, Y. A. / Modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement : Patient specific vs general approaches based on finite element analysis. In: Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 69. pp. 29-36.
@article{21eb77e179c74a20933722468fb33098,
title = "Modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Patient specific vs general approaches based on finite element analysis",
abstract = "Background: There are two main methods used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) FEA modeling for medical devices development: patient specific and general approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of both approaches have never been compared in a single study. Method: Here we propose a bioinformatic algorithm to evaluate the accuracy of patient specific and generalized FEA approaches with regards to proximity configuration of the implanted stent reconstructed by computed tomography. In addition, in this study we also assessed the impact of the level of detail on FEA accuracy in the patient specific approach. Results: Our results demonstrate that in certain cases, the generalized approach can ensure the same accuracy as the patient specific approach. Therefore, considering high cost effectiveness of the generalized approach, we identify it as more feasible in the context of TAVR. Furthermore, we suggest that high level of detail can improve the reproducibility of modeling results in the patient specific approach. Conclusions: Our findings may help medical engineers to better understand the peculiarities of both approaches and therefore make the right decision when choosing a particular approach for computer modeling. Future studies are required to validate our observations.",
keywords = "Aortic root, Calcification, Finite element analysis, Transcatheter heart valves",
author = "Ovcharenko, {E. A.} and Klyshnikov, {K. U.} and Yuzhalin, {A. E.} and Savrasov, {G. V.} and Kokov, {A. N.} and Batranin, {A. V.} and Ganyukov, {V. I.} and Kudryavtseva, {Y. A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.12.001",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "29--36",
journal = "Computers in Biology and Medicine",
issn = "0010-4825",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

T2 - Patient specific vs general approaches based on finite element analysis

AU - Ovcharenko, E. A.

AU - Klyshnikov, K. U.

AU - Yuzhalin, A. E.

AU - Savrasov, G. V.

AU - Kokov, A. N.

AU - Batranin, A. V.

AU - Ganyukov, V. I.

AU - Kudryavtseva, Y. A.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Background: There are two main methods used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) FEA modeling for medical devices development: patient specific and general approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of both approaches have never been compared in a single study. Method: Here we propose a bioinformatic algorithm to evaluate the accuracy of patient specific and generalized FEA approaches with regards to proximity configuration of the implanted stent reconstructed by computed tomography. In addition, in this study we also assessed the impact of the level of detail on FEA accuracy in the patient specific approach. Results: Our results demonstrate that in certain cases, the generalized approach can ensure the same accuracy as the patient specific approach. Therefore, considering high cost effectiveness of the generalized approach, we identify it as more feasible in the context of TAVR. Furthermore, we suggest that high level of detail can improve the reproducibility of modeling results in the patient specific approach. Conclusions: Our findings may help medical engineers to better understand the peculiarities of both approaches and therefore make the right decision when choosing a particular approach for computer modeling. Future studies are required to validate our observations.

AB - Background: There are two main methods used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) FEA modeling for medical devices development: patient specific and general approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of both approaches have never been compared in a single study. Method: Here we propose a bioinformatic algorithm to evaluate the accuracy of patient specific and generalized FEA approaches with regards to proximity configuration of the implanted stent reconstructed by computed tomography. In addition, in this study we also assessed the impact of the level of detail on FEA accuracy in the patient specific approach. Results: Our results demonstrate that in certain cases, the generalized approach can ensure the same accuracy as the patient specific approach. Therefore, considering high cost effectiveness of the generalized approach, we identify it as more feasible in the context of TAVR. Furthermore, we suggest that high level of detail can improve the reproducibility of modeling results in the patient specific approach. Conclusions: Our findings may help medical engineers to better understand the peculiarities of both approaches and therefore make the right decision when choosing a particular approach for computer modeling. Future studies are required to validate our observations.

KW - Aortic root

KW - Calcification

KW - Finite element analysis

KW - Transcatheter heart valves

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949895019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84949895019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.12.001

DO - 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.12.001

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 29

EP - 36

JO - Computers in Biology and Medicine

JF - Computers in Biology and Medicine

SN - 0010-4825

ER -