Katalog Plus
Bibliothek der Frankfurt UAS
Bald neuer Katalog: sichern Sie sich schon vorab Ihre persönlichen Merklisten im Nutzerkonto: Anleitung.
Dieses Ergebnis aus BASE kann Gästen nicht angezeigt werden.  Login für vollen Zugriff.

Comparison of Hemodynamics After Fenestrated, Branched, and Chimney Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Employing Computational Fluid Dynamics

Title: Comparison of Hemodynamics After Fenestrated, Branched, and Chimney Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Employing Computational Fluid Dynamics
Authors: Stavros Malatos; Spyridon Katsoudas; Anastasios Raptis; Laura Fazzini; Petroula Nana; George Kouvelos; Athanasios Giannoukas; Michalis Xenos; Miltiadis Matsagkas
Source: Journal of Clinical Medicine ; Volume 15 ; Issue 5 ; Pages: 1914
Publisher Information: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Publication Year: 2026
Collection: MDPI Open Access Publishing
Subject Terms: FEVAR; BEVAR; chEVAR; computational fluid dynamics; hemodynamic performance; endograft-specific flow analysis
Description: Background/Objectives: This study compared the hemodynamic performance of fenestrated (FEVAR), branched (BEVAR), and chimney endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (chEVAR) in patients with complex aortic aneurysms. Methods: The pre- (native) and post-endovascular repair (endograft-defined) blood lumen was reconstructed from computed tomography angiographies of nine (9) elective patients treated with FEVAR (n = 3), BEVAR (n = 3), and chEVAR (n = 3). Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations obtained blood flow properties. Velocity magnitude, wall shear stress (WSS), time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), oscillatory shear index (OSI), relative residence time (RRT), and local normalized helicity (LNH) were computed at peak systole and mid-diastole. The hemodynamic data were statistically analyzed to evaluate correlations between FEVAR, BEVAR, and chEVAR, focusing on targeted visceral arteries. Results: Only slight differences were observed regarding RRT, OSI, and TAWSS between FEVAR and BEVAR, whereas the chEVAR group demonstrated a marked deviation from both. In FEVAR, the postoperative helical flow structures appeared more compact, while in BEVAR they were more developed and exhibited a more rotational configuration. The LNH of the visceral vessel patterns exhibited similar qualitative features across groups. Regarding TAWSS, higher values were found in BEVAR, whereas chEVAR showed the lowest. Conclusions: FEVAR, BEVAR, and chEVAR improved postoperative blood flow characteristics toward near-physiological conditions, reducing undesired flow patterns and recirculation zones. FEVAR showed more stable visceral flow, and BEVAR demonstrated higher flow rates and fewer recirculation zones, while chEVAR exhibited more streamlined visceral artery flow with reduced regurgitation at bridging stent entries. Despite variations, all approaches effectively preserved visceral artery perfusion.
Document Type: text
File Description: application/pdf
Language: English
Relation: Cardiovascular Medicine; https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm15051914
DOI: 10.3390/jcm15051914
Availability: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15051914
Rights: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Accession Number: edsbas.F1ECD88F
Database: BASE