A comparison of estimation methods for computational fluid dynamics outflow boundary conditions using patient-specific carotid artery

Chang Joon Lee, Nahoko Uemiya, Shoichiro Ishihara, Yu Zhang, Yi Qian*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)


    Computational fluid dynamics simulations can provide important hemodynamic insights for investigating the effectiveness of carotid artery stenting, but its accuracy is dependent on the boundary conditions such as the outflow pressure, which is difficult to obtain by measurements. Many computational fluid dynamics simulations assume that the outflow pressure is constant (P = 0), but this method is likely to produce different results compared to clinical measurements. We have developed an alternative estimation method called the minimum energy loss method based on the concept of energy loss minimization at flow bifurcation. This new method has been tested on computational fluid dynamics simulation of two patients treated with carotid artery stenting, and its flow ratio at internal carotid artery and wall shear stress distribution was compared with the constant zero outlet pressure method. Three different procedure stages (prestent, poststent, and follow-up) were analyzed. The internal carotid artery flow ratio using the minimum energy loss method generally matched well with ultrasound measurements, but the internal carotid artery flow ratio based on zero outlet pressure method showed a large difference. Wall shear stress distributions varied between methods in response to the change in internal carotid artery flow rate. This study demonstrates the importance of accurate outlet boundary condition for assessing the long-term efficacy of carotid artery stenting and the risk of restenosis in treated patients.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)663-671
    Number of pages9
    JournalProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine
    Issue number6
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013


    Cite this