Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 26, 2026

Intravascular Ultrasound Image-Based Finite Element Modeling Approach for Quantifying In Vivo Mechanical Properties of Human Coronary Artery
Published on: December 6, 2024
Uncertainty quantification in coronary blood flow simulations: Impact of geometry, boundary conditions and blood
Sethuraman Sankaran1, Hyun Jin Kim1, Gilwoo Choi1
1HeartFlow Inc., 1400, Seaport Blvd, Building B, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA.
Abstract:
Computational fluid dynamic methods are currently being used clinically to simulate blood flow and pressure and predict the functional significance of atherosclerotic lesions in patient-specific models of the coronary arteries extracted from noninvasive coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) data. One such technology, FFRCT, or noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from CT data, has demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy as compared to invasively measured fractional flow reserve (FFR) obtained with a pressure wire inserted in the coronary arteries during diagnostic cardiac catheterization. However, uncertainties in modeling as well as measurement results in differences between these predicted and measured hemodynamic indices. Uncertainty in modeling can manifest in two forms - anatomic uncertainty resulting in error of the reconstructed 3D model and physiologic uncertainty resulting in errors in boundary conditions or blood viscosity. We present a data-driven framework for modeling these uncertainties and study their impact on blood flow simulations. The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations are used to model blood flow and an adaptive stochastic collocation method is used to model uncertainty propagation in the Navier-Stokes equations. We perform uncertainty quantification in two geometries, an idealized stenosis model and a patient specific model. We show that uncertainty in minimum lumen diameter (MLD) has the largest impact on hemodynamic simulations, followed by boundary resistance, viscosity and lesion length. We show that near the diagnostic cutoff (FFRCT=0.8), the uncertainty due to the latter three variables are lower than measurement uncertainty, while the uncertainty due to MLD is only slightly higher than measurement uncertainty. We also show that uncertainties are not additive but only slightly higher than the highest single parameter uncertainty. The method presented here can be used to output interval estimates of hemodynamic indices and visualize patient-specific maps of sensitivities.
More Related Videos
06:39Ultrasound Based Assessment of Coronary Artery Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Using the Pressure Overload Model in Mice
Published on: April 13, 2015
13:07Optical Coherence Tomography Based Biomechanical Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis of Coronary Atherosclerosis Progression
Published on: January 15, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Physiological Pharmacokinetic Models: Blood Flow-Limited Versus Diffusion-Limited Models
Applications of Integration to Find Blood Flow
Autoregulation of Blood Flow
Chemical Signaling in Autoregulation
Chemical signaling operates at the precapillary sphincter level, inciting either contraction or relaxation....
Bernoulli's Equation for Flow Along a Streamline
Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals
Uncertainty: Overview