CFD validation using in-vitro MRI velocity data - Methods for data matching and CFD error quantification

Predicting blood flow velocities in patient-specific geometries with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can provide additional data for diagnosis and treatment planning but the solution can be inaccurate. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the simulation errors and calibrate the numerical model. In-vitro velocity-encoded MRI is a versatile tool to validate CFD. The comparison between CFD and in-vitro MRI velocity data, and the analysis of the simulation error are the objectives of this study. A three-step routine is presented to validate medical CFD data. First, a properly scaled model of the patient-specific geometry is fabricated to achieve high relative resolution in the MRI experiment. Second, the measured flow geometry is matched with the CFD data using one of two algorithms, Coherent Point Drift and Iterative Closest Point. The aligned data sets are then interpolated onto a common grid to enable a point-to-point comparison. Third, the global and local deviations between CFD and MRI velocity data are calculated using different algorithms to reliably estimate the simulation error. The routine is successfully tested with a patient-specific model of a cerebral aneurysm. In conclusion, the methods presented here provide a framework for CFD validation using in-vitro MRI velocity data.

[1]  Andriy Myronenko,et al.  Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  H. Marquering,et al.  Wall shear stress estimated with phase contrast MRI in an in vitro and in vivo intracranial aneurysm , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  Franck Nicoud,et al.  Reconciling PC‐MRI and CFD: An in‐vitro study , 2019, NMR in biomedicine.

[4]  M. Ono,et al.  Impact of top end anastomosis design on patency and flow stability in coronary artery bypass grafting , 2016, Heart and Vessels.

[5]  Michael Markl,et al.  4D flow MRI , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[6]  Yasuo Takehara,et al.  Validation of numerical simulation methods in aortic arch using 4D Flow MRI , 2017, Heart and Vessels.

[7]  Henry Leung,et al.  A Review of Point Set Registration: From Pairwise Registration to Groupwise Registration , 2019, Sensors.

[8]  Heinz-Peter Schiffer,et al.  Estimation of the measurement uncertainty in magnetic resonance velocimetry based on statistical models , 2016 .

[9]  Scott B. Reeder,et al.  Surgical planning for living donor liver transplant using 4D flow MRI, computational fluid dynamics and in vitro experiments , 2018, Comput. methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. Imaging Vis..

[10]  J. Hennig,et al.  3D MR flow analysis in realistic rapid‐prototyping model systems of the thoracic aorta: Comparison with in vivo data and computational fluid dynamics in identical vessel geometries , 2008, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[11]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  A Review of Point Cloud Registration Algorithms for Mobile Robotics , 2015, Found. Trends Robotics.

[12]  Hao Liu,et al.  Blood flow dynamic improvement with aneurysm repair detected by a patient-specific model of multiple aortic aneurysms , 2014, Heart and Vessels.

[13]  F. Pott,et al.  Middle cerebral artery blood velocity during running , 2013, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[14]  Alfonso Lagares,et al.  Basic Principles of Hemodynamics and Cerebral Aneurysms. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[15]  Heeyoung Kim,et al.  A new metric of absolute percentage error for intermittent demand forecasts , 2016 .

[16]  Ian Marshall,et al.  MRI measurement of time‐resolved wall shear stress vectors in a carotid bifurcation model, and comparison with CFD predictions , 2003, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  N J Pelc,et al.  Minimizing TE in moment‐nulled or flow‐encoded two‐and three‐dimensional gradient‐echo imaging , 1992, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[18]  Alastair J. Martin,et al.  Phase‐contrast magnetic resonance imaging measurements in intracranial aneurysms in vivo of flow patterns, velocity fields, and wall shear stress: Comparison with computational fluid dynamics , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[19]  M. Umezu,et al.  Computational Hemodynamic Analysis in Congenital Heart Disease: Simulation of the Norwood Procedure , 2010, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  Gérard G. Medioni,et al.  Object modelling by registration of multiple range images , 1992, Image Vis. Comput..

[21]  Philipp Berg,et al.  Comparison of intracranial aneurysm flow quantification techniques: standard PIV vs stereoscopic PIV vs tomographic PIV vs phase-contrast MRI vs CFD , 2018, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[22]  D. Liepsch,et al.  Phase-contrast MRI versus numerical simulation to quantify hemodynamical changes in cerebral aneurysms after flow diverter treatment , 2018, PloS one.

[23]  J Sijbers,et al.  Data distributions in magnetic resonance images: a review. , 2014, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.