Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)—phase II: rupture risk assessment

AbstractPurposeAssessing the rupture probability of intracranial aneurysms (IAs) remains challenging. Therefore, hemodynamic simulations are increasingly applied toward supporting physicians during treatment planning. However, due to several assumptions, the clinical acceptance of these methods remains limited.MethodsTo provide an overview of state-of-the-art blood flow simulation capabilities, the Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH) was conducted. Seventeen research groups from all over the world performed segmentations and hemodynamic simulations to identify the ruptured aneurysm in a patient harboring five IAs. Although simulation setups revealed good similarity, clear differences exist with respect to the analysis of aneurysm shape and blood flow results. Most groups (12/71%) included morphological and hemodynamic parameters in their analysis, with aspect ratio and wall shear stress as the most popular candidates, respectively.ResultsThe majority of groups (7/41%) selected the largest aneurysm as being the ruptured one. Four (24%) of the participating groups were able to correctly select the ruptured aneurysm, while three groups (18%) ranked the ruptured aneurysm as the second most probable. Successful selections were based on the integration of clinically relevant information such as the aneurysm site, as well as advanced rupture probability models considering multiple parameters. Additionally, flow characteristics such as the quantification of inflow jets and the identification of multiple vortices led to correct predictions.ConclusionsMATCH compares state-of-the-art image-based blood flow simulation approaches to assess the rupture risk of IAs. Furthermore, this challenge highlights the importance of multivariate analyses by combining clinically relevant metadata with advanced morphological and hemodynamic quantification.

[1]  J. Mocco,et al.  Hemodynamic–Morphologic Discriminants for Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture , 2011, Stroke.

[2]  C. Putman,et al.  Quantitative Characterization of the Hemodynamic Environment in Ruptured and Unruptured Brain Aneurysms , 2010, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[3]  Fernando Mut,et al.  Development of a statistical model for discrimination of rupture status in posterior communicating artery aneurysms , 2018, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[4]  J. Rossmann,et al.  Effect of non-newtonian behavior on hemodynamics of cerebral aneurysms. , 2009, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[5]  Alastair J. Martin,et al.  Aneurysm Growth Occurs at Region of Low Wall Shear Stress: Patient-Specific Correlation of Hemodynamics and Growth in a Longitudinal Study , 2008, Stroke.

[6]  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.

[7]  Daniel M. Espino,et al.  Modeling Blood Flow Through Intracranial Aneurysms: A Comparison of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Viscosity , 2016 .

[8]  F. Molinari,et al.  On the quantification and visualization of transient periodic instabilities in pulsatile flows. , 2017, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  D. Steinman,et al.  Mind the Gap: Impact of Computational Fluid Dynamics Solution Strategy on Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Hemodynamics and Rupture Status Indicators , 2014, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[10]  Gary R. Mirams,et al.  Uncertainty and variability in computational and mathematical models of cardiac physiology , 2016, The Journal of physiology.

[11]  F. Mut,et al.  Association of Hemodynamic Characteristics and Cerebral Aneurysm Rupture , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[12]  Hélène Raoult,et al.  Imaging Follow-Up of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by Endovascular Means: Why, When, and How? , 2016, Stroke.

[13]  David A Steinman,et al.  The Computational Fluid Dynamics Rupture Challenge 2013--Phase II: Variability of Hemodynamic Simulations in Two Intracranial Aneurysms. , 2015, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[14]  Pierre Bouillot,et al.  Particle Imaging Velocimetry Evaluation of Intracranial Stents in Sidewall Aneurysm: Hemodynamic Transition Related to the Stent Design , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  David A Steinman,et al.  High-resolution computational fluid dynamics detects flow instabilities in the carotid siphon: implications for aneurysm initiation and rupture? , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  D F Kallmes,et al.  Angioarchitectures and Hemodynamic Characteristics of Posterior Communicating Artery Aneurysms and Their Association with Rupture Status , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[17]  M Umezu,et al.  Risk Analysis of Unruptured Aneurysms Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology: Preliminary Results , 2011, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[18]  F Mut,et al.  Flow Conditions in the Intracranial Aneurysm Lumen Are Associated with Inflammation and Degenerative Changes of the Aneurysm Wall , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[19]  Charles A. Taylor,et al.  Uncertainty quantification in coronary blood flow simulations: Impact of geometry, boundary conditions and blood viscosity. , 2016, Journal of biomechanics.

[20]  F. Hamzei-Sichani,et al.  Differences in Hemodynamics and Rupture Rate of Aneurysms at the Bifurcation of the Basilar and Internal Carotid Arteries , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[21]  G. Janiga,et al.  Cerebral blood flow in a healthy Circle of Willis and two intracranial aneurysms: computational fluid dynamics versus four-dimensional phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. , 2014, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[22]  D. Liepsch,et al.  NEWTONIAN AND NON-NEWTONIAN BLOOD FLOW AT A 90∘-BIFURCATION OF THE CEREBRAL ARTERY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FLUID VISCOSITY MODELS , 2018 .

[23]  Alejandro F. Frangi,et al.  Newtonian and non-Newtonian blood flow in coiled cerebral aneurysms. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  D. Holdsworth,et al.  Image-based computational simulation of flow dynamics in a giant intracranial aneurysm. , 2003, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[25]  Hans-Christian Hege,et al.  Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH): uncertainty quantification of geometric rupture risk parameters , 2019, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[26]  Adnan H Siddiqui,et al.  Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamic Validation for Medical Use: Application to Intracranial Aneurysm. , 2017, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[27]  Fernando Mut,et al.  CFD and PIV analysis of hemodynamics in a growing intracranial aneurysm , 2012, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering.

[28]  C Chnafa,et al.  Better Than Nothing: A Rational Approach for Minimizing the Impact of Outflow Strategy on Cerebrovascular Simulations , 2017, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[29]  S Saalfeld,et al.  Does the DSA reconstruction kernel affect hemodynamic predictions in intracranial aneurysms? An analysis of geometry and blood flow variations , 2017, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[30]  Jianping Xiang,et al.  Rupture Resemblance Score (RRS): toward risk stratification of unruptured intracranial aneurysms using hemodynamic–morphological discriminants , 2014, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[31]  Thomas Wagner,et al.  Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH): Phase I: Segmentation , 2018, Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology.

[32]  Prahlad G. Menon,et al.  Variability of computational fluid dynamics solutions for pressure and flow in a giant aneurysm: the ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference CFD Challenge. , 2013, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[33]  D A Steinman,et al.  The Computational Fluid Dynamics Rupture Challenge 2013—Phase I: Prediction of Rupture Status in Intracranial Aneurysms , 2015, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[34]  S Miyachi,et al.  Computer Simulation of Flow Dynamics in an Intracranial Aneurysm , 2004, Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences.

[35]  David A Steinman,et al.  Real-World Variability in the Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Wall Shear Stress: The 2015 International Aneurysm CFD Challenge , 2018, Cardiovascular engineering and technology.

[36]  Fernando Mut,et al.  Development and internal validation of an aneurysm rupture probability model based on patient characteristics and aneurysm location, morphology, and hemodynamics , 2018, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[37]  Bernhard Preim,et al.  Fluid-Structure Simulations of a Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysm: Constant versus Patient-Specific Wall Thickness , 2016, Comput. Math. Methods Medicine.

[38]  Philipp Berg,et al.  Multiple intracranial aneurysms: a direct hemodynamic comparison between ruptured and unruptured vessel malformations , 2017, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[39]  C D Murray,et al.  The Physiological Principle of Minimum Work: I. The Vascular System and the Cost of Blood Volume. , 1926, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  I E Vignon-Clementel,et al.  Uncertainty quantification in virtual surgery hemodynamics predictions for single ventricle palliation , 2016, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering.

[41]  Fujimaro Ishida,et al.  Hemodynamic Differences Between Ruptured and Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms Simultaneously Existing in the Same Location: 2 Case Reports and Proposal of a Novel Parameter Oscillatory Velocity Index. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[42]  Jianping Xiang,et al.  Hemodynamic–morphological discriminant models for intracranial aneurysm rupture remain stable with increasing sample size , 2014, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.