Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 56 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 39 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 16 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 99 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 155 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 476 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Comparison of 1D and 3D Models for the Estimation of Fractional Flow Reserve (1805.11472v1)

Published 29 May 2018 in physics.med-ph and cs.CE

Abstract: In this work we propose to validate the predictive capabilities of one-dimensional (1D) blood flow models with full three-dimensional (3D) models in the context of patient-specific coronary hemodynamics in hyperemic conditions. Such conditions mimic the state of coronary circulation during the acquisition of the Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) index. Demonstrating that 1D models accurately reproduce FFR estimates obtained with 3D models has implications in the approach to computationally estimate FFR. To this end, a sample of 20 patients was employed from which 29 3D geometries of arterial trees were constructed, 9 obtained from coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and 20 from intra-vascular ultrasound (IVUS). For each 3D arterial model, a 1D counterpart was generated. The same outflow and inlet pressure boundary conditions were applied to both (3D and 1D) models. In the 1D setting, pressure losses at stenoses and bifurcations were accounted for through specific lumped models. Comparisons between 1D models ($\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$) and 3D models ($\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$) were performed in terms of predicted $\text{FFR}$ value. Compared to $\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$, $\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$ resulted with a difference of 0.00$\pm$0.03 and overall predictive capability AUC, Acc, Spe, Sen, PPV and NPV of 0.97, 0.98, 0.90, 0.99, 0.82, and 0.99, with an FFR threshold of 0.8. We conclude that inexpensive $\text{FFR}{\text{1D}}$ simulations can be reliably used as a surrogate of demanding $\text{FFR}{\text{3D}}$ computations.

Citations (62)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.