ArticleScientific reports2025
Influence of boundary conditions and blood rheology on indices of wall shear stress from IVUS-based patient-specific stented coronary artery simulations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Geometry to Flow Allocation: A Physics-Based Framework for Interpretable Microvascular Hemodynamics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Haemodynamic and biomechanical biomarker analysis of carotid fibromuscular dysplasia via fluid-structure interaction.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Advances in Functional Vascular Stents for Cardiovascular Therapy with Drug Delivery and Computational Design.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long-term clinical efficacy of coronary stents is limited by restenosis. Coronary stenting results in altered arterial geometry, local blood flow patterns, and wall shear stress (WSS), all of which can influence restenosis. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations employ assumptions about blood properties and boundary conditions, which also influence WSS alterations from stenting. Our objective was to evaluate three common assumptions applied with stented coronary artery CFD simulations (inlet velocity profile, outlet boundary conditions, and viscosity) to provide insight for future studies. A patient-specific right coronary artery was reconstructed from intravascular ultrasound and computed tomography imaging. Time-averaged WSS (TAWSS) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) were compared for CFD simulations using parabolic and Womersley (α = 2.5) velocity profiles and Newtonian versus non-Newtonian (Carreau-Yasuda) viscosity. TAWSS and OSI differences were quantified for 5-element lumped parameter network (LPN) outlet boundary conditions as compared to a 3-element Windkessel approach previously applied by neglecting ventricular contraction. Differences in velocity profiles were negligible beyond two diameters from the inlet. Differences between Womersley inlet 3-element and 5-element LPNs were ~ 5% for TAWSS and ~ 200% for OSI, and most pronounced near stent struts. OSI differences were due to pressure differences between outlet boundary conditions inducing different near-wall velocity gradients. TAWSS differences between viscosity models were greatest near struts (~ 100%). Collectively these results suggest certain assumptions commonly applied for simulations of stented coronary arteries have a greater impact on TAWSS and OSI than others, with outlet boundary conditions being paramount, followed by viscosity model and inlet velocity profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.