Influence of Outlet Boundary Conditions on Cerebrovascular Aneurysm Hemodynamics

Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) studies of blood flow in cerebrovascular aneurysms have potential to improve patient treatment planning by enabling clinicians and engineers to model patient-specific geometries and compute predictors and risks prior to neurovascular intervention. However, the use of patient-specific computational models in clinical settings is unfeasible due to their complexity, computationally intensive and time-consuming nature. An important factor contributing to this challenge is the choice of outlet boundary conditions, which often involves a trade-off between physiological accuracy, patient-specificity, simplicity and speed. In this study, we analyze how resistance and impedance outlet boundary conditions affect blood flow velocities, wall shear stresses and pressure distributions in a patient-specific model of a cerebrovascular aneurysm. We also use geometrical manipulation techniques to obtain a model of the patient’s vasculature prior to aneurysm development, and study how forces and stresses may have been involved in the initiation of aneurysm growth. Our CFD results show that the nature of the prescribed outlet boundary conditions is not as important as the relative distributions of blood flow through each outlet branch. As long as the appropriate parameters are chosen to keep these flow distributions consistent with physiology, resistance boundary conditions, which are simpler, easier to use and more practical than their impedance counterparts, are sufficient to study aneurysm pathophysiology, since they predict very similar wall shear stresses, time-averaged wall shear stresses, time-averaged pressures, and blood flow patterns and velocities. The only situations where the use of impedance boundary conditions should be prioritized is if pressure waveforms are being analyzed, or if local pressure distributions are being evaluated at specific time points, especially at peak systole, where the use of resistance boundary conditions leads to unnaturally large pressure pulses. In addition, we show that in this specific patient, the region of the blood vessel where the neck of the aneurysm developed was subject to abnormally high wall shear stresses, and that regions surrounding blebs on the aneurysmal surface were subject to low, oscillatory wall shear stresses. Computational models using resistance outlet boundary conditions may be suitable to study patient-specific aneurysm progression in a clinical setting, although several other challenges must be addressed before these tools can be applied clinically.

Primary care physician decision making regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of severely obese US adults undergo bariatric surgery annually. It is critical to understand the factors that contribute to its utilization. OBJECTIVES: To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make decisions regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery referral. SETTING: Focus groups with PCPs practicing in small, medium, and large cities in Wisconsin. METHODS: PCPs were asked to discuss prioritization of treatment for a severely obese patient with multiple co-morbidities and considerations regarding bariatric surgery referral. Focus group sessions were analyzed by using a directed approach to content analysis. A taxonomy of consensus codes was developed. Code summaries were created and representative quotes identified. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs participated in 3 focus groups. Four treatment prioritization approaches were identified: (1) treat the disease that is easiest to address; (2) treat the disease that is perceived as the most dangerous; (3) let the patient set the agenda; and (4) address obesity first because it is the common denominator underlying other co-morbid conditions. Only the latter approach placed emphasis on obesity treatment. Five factors made PCPs hesitate to refer patients for bariatric surgery: (1) wanting to "do no harm"; (2) questioning the long-term effectiveness of bariatric surgery; (3) limited knowledge about bariatric surgery; (4) not wanting to recommend bariatric surgery too early; and (5) not knowing if insurance would cover bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Decision making by PCPs for severely obese patients seems to underprioritize obesity treatment and overestimate bariatric surgery risks. This could be addressed with PCP education and improvements in communication between PCPs and bariatric surgeons.