Comparison of LBM and FVM in the estimation of LAD stenosis

• Published in: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine Journal of engineering in medicine, 2021-09, Vol.235 (9), p.1058-1068
• Main Authors: Liu, Jian, Yu, Yong, Zhu, Chenqi, Zhang, Yu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Blood flow; Boltzmann transport equation; Computational fluid dynamics; Computer applications; Computing time; Coronary artery; Diagnosis; Finite volume method; Flow distribution; Flow simulation; Fluid dynamics; Fluid flow; Hydrodynamics; Local flow; Shear stress; Simulation; Stenosis; Stents; Wall shear stresses
• ISSN: 0954-4119; 2041-3033
• DOI: 10.1177/09544119211016912

The finite volume method (FVM)-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology has been applied in the non-invasive diagnosis of coronary artery stenosis. Nonetheless, FVM is a time-consuming process. In addition to FVM, the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) is used in fluid flow simulation. Unlike FVM solving the Navier–Stokes equations, LBM directly solves the simplified Boltzmann equation, thus saving computational time. In this study, 12 patients with left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis, diagnosed by CTA, are analysed using FVM and LBM. The velocities, pressures, and wall shear stress (WSS) predicted using FVM and LBM for each patient is compared. In particular, the ratio of the average and maximum speed at the stenotic part characterising the degree of stenosis is compared. Finally, the golden standard of LAD stenosis, invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR), is applied to justify the simulation results. Our results show that LBM and FVM are consistent in blood flow simulation. In the region with a high degree of stenosis, the local flow patterns in those two solvers are slightly different, resulting in minor differences in local WSS estimation and blood speed ratio estimation. Notably, these differences do not result in an inconsistent estimation. Comparison with invasive FFR shows that, in most cases, the non-invasive diagnosis is consistent with FFR measurements. However, in some cases, the non-invasive diagnosis either underestimates or overestimates the degree of stenosis. This deviation is caused by the difference between physiological and simulation conditions that remains the biggest challenge faced by all CFD-based non-invasive diagnostic methods.