A mathematical evaluation of hemodynamic parameters after carotid eversion and conventional patch angioplasty

Authors

Alexey Kamenskiy, University of Nebraska Medical CenterFollow
Iraklis I. Pipinos, University of Nebraska Medical CenterFollow
Yuris A. Dzenis, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Prateek K. Gupta, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics
Syed A. Jaffar Kazmi, University of Nebraska-Medical CenterFollow
Jason N. MacTaggart, University of Nebraska-Medical CenterFollow

Date of this Version

2013

Citation

Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 305(5): H716-H724. DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00034.2013

Comments

Copyright © 2013 the American Physiological Society. Used by permission.

Abstract

Carotid endarterectomy has a long history in stroke prevention, yet controversy remains concerning optimal techniques. Two methods frequently used are endarterectomy with patch angioplasty (CEAP) and eversion endarterectomy (CEE). The objective of this study was to compare hemodynamics-related stress and strain distributions between arteries repaired using CEAP and CEE. Mathematical models were based on in vivo three-dimensional arterial geometry, pulsatile velocity profiles, and intraluminal pressure inputs obtained from 16 patients with carotid artery disease. These data were combined with experimentally derived nonlinear, anisotropic carotid artery mechanical properties to create fluid-structure interaction models of CEAP and CEE. These models were then used to calculate hemodynamic parameters thought to promote recurrent disease and restenosis. Combining calculations of stress and strain into a composite risk index, called the integral abnormality factor, allowed for an overall comparison between CEAP and CEE. CEE demonstrated lower mechanical stresses in the arterial wall, whereas CEAP straightened the artery and caused high stress and strain concentrations at the suture-artery interface. CEAP produced a larger continuous region of oscillatory, low-shear, vortical flow in the carotid bulb. There was a more than two-fold difference in the integral abnormality factor, favoring CEE. In conclusion, in a realistically simulated carotid artery, fluid-structure interaction modeling demonstrated CEE to produce less mechanical wall stress and improved flow patterns compared with CEAP. Clinical validation with larger numbers of individual patients will ultimately be required to support modeling approaches to help predict arterial disease progression and comparative effectiveness of reconstruction methods and devices.