Reliability of characterising coronary artery flow with the flow-split outflow strategy: comparison against the multiscale approach

TL;DR

This study compares a simplified flow-split method to detailed multiscale simulations for coronary artery flow, finding the simplified approach suitable at rest but less accurate under hyperaemic conditions, especially with severe stenosis.

Contribution

It introduces and evaluates a flow-split strategy with variable exponents as a computationally efficient alternative to multiscale models in coronary haemodynamics.

Findings

Flow-split matches multiscale results at rest.

Flow-split overestimates wall shear stress during hyperaemia.

Multiscale models are necessary for hyperaemic conditions in severe stenosis.

Abstract

In computational modelling of coronary haemodynamics, imposing patient-specific flow conditions is paramount, yet often impractical due to resource and time constraints, limiting the ability to perform a large number of simulations particularly for diseased cases. We aimed to compare coronary haemodynamics quantified using a simplified flow-split strategy with varying exponents against the clinically verified but computationally intensive multiscale simulations under both resting and hyperaemic conditions in arteries with varying degrees of stenosis. Six patient-specific left coronary artery trees were segmented and reconstructed, including three with severe (>70%) and three with mild (<50%) focal stenoses. Simulations were performed for the entire coronary tree to account for the flow-limiting effects from epicardial artery stenoses. Both a 0D-3D coupled multiscale model and a flow-split approach with four different exponents (2.0, 2.27, 2.33, and 3.0) were used. The resulting prominent haemodynamic metrics were statistically compared between the two methods. Flow-split and multiscale simulations did not significantly differ under resting conditions regardless of the stenosis severity. However, under hyperaemic conditions, the flow-split method significantly overestimated the time-averaged wall shear stress by up to 16.8 Pa (p=0.031) and underestimate the fractional flow reserve by 0.327 (p=0.043), with larger discrepancies observed in severe stenoses than in mild ones. Varying the exponent from 2.0 to 3.0 within the flow-split methods did not significantly affect the haemodynamic results (p>0.141). Flow-split strategies with exponents between 2.0 and 3.0 are appropriate for modelling stenosed coronaries under resting conditions. Multiscale simulations are recommended for accurate modelling of hyperaemic conditions, especially in severely stenosed arteries.