Multi-patient study for coronary vulnerable plaque model comparisons: 2D/3D and fluid–structure interaction simulations

Qingyu Wang, Dalin Tang, Liang Wang, Akiko Meahara, David Molony, Habib Samady, Jie Zheng, Gary S. Mintz, Gregg W. Stone, Don P. Giddens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Several image-based computational models have been used to perform mechanical analysis for atherosclerotic plaque progression and vulnerability investigations. However, differences of computational predictions from those models have not been quantified at multi-patient level. In vivo intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) coronary plaque data were acquired from seven patients. Seven 2D/3D models with/without circumferential shrink, cyclic bending and fluid–structure interactions (FSI) were constructed for the seven patients to perform model comparisons and quantify impact of 2D simplification, circumferential shrink, FSI and cyclic bending plaque wall stress/strain (PWS/PWSn) and flow shear stress (FSS) calculations. PWS/PWSn and FSS averages from seven patients (388 slices for 2D and 3D thin-layer models) were used for comparison. Compared to 2D models with shrink process, 2D models without shrink process overestimated PWS by 17.26%. PWS change at location with greatest curvature change from 3D FSI models with/without cyclic bending varied from 15.07% to 49.52% for the seven patients (average = 30.13%). Mean Max-FSS, Min-FSS and Ave-FSS from the flow-only models under maximum pressure condition were 4.02%, 11.29% and 5.45% higher than those from full FSI models with cycle bending, respectively. Mean PWS and PWSn differences between FSI and structure-only models were only 4.38% and 1.78%. Model differences had noticeable patient variations. FSI and flow-only model differences were greater for minimum FSS predictions, notable since low FSS is known to be related to plaque progression. Structure-only models could provide PWS/PWSn calculations as good approximations to FSI models for simplicity and time savings in calculation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1383-1397
Number of pages15
JournalBiomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 2021


  • Models comparison
  • Patient-specific model
  • Vulnerable plaque


Dive into the research topics of 'Multi-patient study for coronary vulnerable plaque model comparisons: 2D/3D and fluid–structure interaction simulations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this