Non-Newtonian Endothelial Shear Stress Simulation: Does It Matter?

Patient-specific coronary endothelial shear stress (ESS) calculations using Newtonian and non-Newtonian rheological models were performed to assess whether the common assumption of Newtonian blood behavior offers similar results to a more realistic but computationally expensive non-Newtonian model. 16 coronary arteries (from 16 patients) were reconstructed from optical coherence tomographic (OCT) imaging. Pulsatile CFD simulations using Newtonian and the Quemada non-Newtonian model were performed. Endothelial shear stress (ESS) and other indices were compared. Exploratory indices including local blood viscosity (LBV) were calculated from non-Newtonian simulation data. Compared to the Newtonian results, the non-Newtonian model estimates significantly higher time-averaged ESS (1.69 (IQR 1.36)Pa versus 1.28 (1.16)Pa, p < 0.001) and ESS gradient (0.90 (1.20)Pa/mm versus 0.74 (1.03)Pa/mm, p < 0.001) throughout the cardiac cycle, under-estimating the low ESS (<1Pa) area (37.20 ± 13.57% versus 50.43 ± 14.16%, 95% CI 11.28-15.18, p < 0.001). Similar results were also found in the idealized artery simulations with non-Newtonian median ESS being higher than the Newtonian median ESS (healthy segments: 0.8238Pa versus 0.6618Pa, p < 0.001 proximal; 0.8179Pa versus 0.6610Pa, p < 0.001 distal; stenotic segments: 0.8196Pa versus 0.6611Pa, p < 0.001 proximal; 0.2546Pa versus 0.2245Pa, p < 0.001 distal) On average, the non-Newtonian model has a LBV of 1.45 times above the Newtonian model with an average peak LBV of 40-fold. Non-Newtonian blood model estimates higher quantitative ESS values than the Newtonian model. Incorporation of non-Newtonian blood behavior may improve the accuracy of ESS measurements. The non-Newtonian model also allows calculation of exploratory viscosity-based hemodynamic indices, such as local blood viscosity, which may offer additional information to detect underlying atherosclerosis.
Competing Interests: PS reports personal fees from Sino Medical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, and Xeltis. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2022 Thondapu, Shishikura, Dijkstra, Zhu, Revalor, Serruys, van Gaal, Poon, Ooi and Barlis.)