Artery Research (Dec 2018)

P52 ESTIMATING CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE FROM MRI DATA USING REDUCED-ORDER COMPUTATIONAL MODELS

  • Jorge Mariscal Harana,
  • Peter H. Charlton,
  • Samuel Vennin,
  • Arna van Engelen,
  • Torben Schneider,
  • Mateusz Florkow,
  • Hubrecht de Bliek,
  • Bram Ruijsink,
  • Israel Valverde,
  • Marietta Charakida,
  • Kuberan Pushparajah,
  • Spencer Sherwin,
  • Rene Botnar,
  • Jordi Alastruey

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2018.10.105
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24

Abstract

Read online

Purpose: Central Blood Pressure (CBP) is a better cardiovascular risk indicator than brachial pressure [1]. However, gold standard CBP measurements require an invasive catheter. We propose an approach to estimate CBP non-invasively from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data coupled with a non-invasive brachial pressure measurement, using reduced-order (0-D/1-D) computational models. Our objectives were: identifying optimum model parameter estimation methods and comparing the performance of 0-D/1-D models for estimating CBP. Methods: Populations of virtual (simulated) healthy subjects were generated based on [2]. Pressure and flow waveforms from these populations were used to develop and test Methods: for estimating model parameters. Two common clinical scenarios were considered: when a brachial pressure waveform is available; and when only systolic and diastolic blood pressures are available. Optimal parameter estimation Methods: were identified for each scenario and used with two 0-D Windkessel models and a 1-D aortic model. Results were compared with invasive CBP in a post-coarctation repair population (n = 10). Results: Model parameters were best estimated by: fitting an exponential to the pressure waveform to estimate compliance and outflow pressure; using the least-squares method to estimate pulse wave velocity from flow data; assuming characteristic impedance was 5% of arterial resistance; and estimating end-systolic time from the second derivative of the pressure waveform. Average pulse and systolic CBP errors were <5 mmHg and <2 mmHg, respectively. Conclusions: We have demonstrated the feasibility of estimating CBP from MRI and brachial pressure. Different reduced-order models provided similar performance, although the 1-D model reproduced pressure waveform morphology more accurately.