Total cavopulmonary connection is the result of a series of palliative surgical repairs performed on patients with single ventricle heart defects. The resulting anatomy has complex and unsteady hemodynamics characterized by flow mixing and flow separation. Although varying degrees of flow pulsatility have been observed in vivo, non-pulsatile (time-averaged) boundary conditions have traditionally been assumed in hemodynamic modeling, and only recently have pulsatile conditions been incorporated without completely characterizing their effect or importance. In this study, 3D numerical simulations with both pulsatile and non-pulsatile boundary conditions were performed for 24 patients with different anatomies and flow boundary conditions from Georgia Tech database. Flow structures, energy dissipation rates and pressure drops were compared under rest and simulated exercise conditions. It was found that flow pulsatility is the primary factor in determining the appropriate choice of boundary conditions, whereas the anatomic configuration and cardiac output had secondary effects. Results show that the hemodynamics can be strongly influenced by the presence of pulsatile flow. However, there was a minimum pulsatility threshold, identified by defining a weighted pulsatility index (wPI), above which the influence was significant. It was shown that when wPI < 30%, the relative error in hemodynamic predictions using time-averaged boundary conditions was less than 10% compared to pulsatile simulations. In addition, when wPI < 50, the relative error was less than 20%. A correlation was introduced to relate wPI to the relative error in predicting the flow metrics with non-pulsatile flow conditions.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools have been extensively applied to study the hemodynamics in the total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC) in patients with only a single functioning ventricle. Without the contraction of a sub-pulmonary ventricle, pulsatility of flow through this connection is low and variable across patients, which is usually neglected in most numerical modeling studies. Recent studies suggest that such pulsatility can be non-negligible and can be important in hemodynamic predictions. The goal of this work is to compare the results of an in-house numerical methodology for simulating pulsatile TCPC flow with experimental results. Digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) was acquired on TCPC in vitro models to evaluate the capability of the CFD tool in predicting pulsatile TCPC flow fields. In vitro hemodynamic measurements were used to compare the numerical prediction of power loss across the connection. The results demonstrated the complexity of the pulsatile TCPC flow fields and the validity of the numerical approach in simulating pulsatile TCPC flow dynamics in both idealized and complex patient specific models.
Background: We present a fundamental theoretical framework for analysis of energy dissipation in any component of the circulatory system and formulate the full energy budget for both venous and arterial circulations. New indices allowing disease-specific subject-to-subject comparisons and disease-to-disease hemodynamic evaluation (quantifying the hemodynamic severity of one vascular disease type to the other) are presented based on this formalism.
Methods and Results: Dimensional analysis of energy dissipation rate with respect to the human circulation shows that the rate of energy dissipation is inversely proportional to the square of the patient body surface area and directly proportional to the cube of cardiac output. This result verified the established formulae for energy loss in aortic stenosis that was solely derived through empirical clinical experience. Three new indices are introduced to evaluate more complex disease states: (1) circulation energy dissipation index (CEDI), (2) aortic valve energy dissipation index (AV-EDI), and (3) total cavopulmonary connection energy dissipation index (TCPC-EDI). CEDI is based on the full energy budget of the circulation and is the proper measure of the work performed by the ventricle relative to the net energy spent in overcoming frictional forces. It is shown to be 4.01 ± 0.16 for healthy individuals and above 7.0 for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Application of CEDI index on single-ventricle venous physiology reveals that the surgically created Fontan circulation, which is indeed palliative, progressively degrades in hemodynamic efficiency with growth (p < 0.001), with the net dissipation in a typical Fontan patient (Body surface area = 1.0 m2) being equivalent to that of an average case of severe aortic stenosis. AV-EDI is shown to be the proper index to gauge the hemodynamic severity of stenosed aortic valves as it accurately reflects energy loss. It is about 0.28 ± 0.12 for healthy human valves. Moderate aortic stenosis has an AV-EDI one order of magnitude higher while clinically severe aortic stenosis cases always had magnitudes above 3.0. TCPC-EDI represents the efficiency of the TCPC connection and is shown to be negatively correlated to the size of a typical "bottle-neck" region (pulmonary artery) in the surgical TCPC pathway (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Energy dissipation in the human circulation has been analyzed theoretically to derive the proper scaling (indexing) factor. CEDI, AV-EDI, and TCPC-EDI are proper measures of the dissipative characteristics of the circulatory system, aortic valve, and the Fontan connection, respectively.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations are widely utilized to assess Fontan hemodynamics that are related to long-term complications. No previous studies have systemically investigated the effects of using different inlet velocity profiles in Fontan simulations. This study implements real, patient-specific velocity profiles for numerical assessment of Fontan hemodynamics using CFD simulations. Four additional, artificial velocity profiles were used for comparison: (1) flat, (2) parabolic, (3) Womersley, and (4) parabolic with inlet extensions [to develop flow before entering the total cavopulmonary connection (TCPC)]. The differences arising from the five velocity profiles, as well as discrepancies between the real and each of the artificial velocity profiles, were quantified by examining clinically important metrics in TCPC hemodynamics: power loss (PL), viscous dissipation rate (VDR), hepatic flow distribution, and regions of low wall shear stress. Statistically significant differences were observed in PL and VDR between simulations using real and flat velocity profiles, but differences between those using real velocity profiles and the other three artificial profiles did not reach statistical significance. These conclusions suggest that the artificial velocity profiles (2)–(4) are acceptable surrogates for real velocity profiles in Fontan simulations, but parabolic profiles are recommended because of their low computational demands and prevalent applicability.