Table 1.
Demographic and CMR data before and after PVR.
Fig 1.
CMR-based model construction process and zero-load diastole and systole geometries.
(a) Selected CMR slices from a patient, end of systole; (b) segmented contours; (c) zero-load diastole geometry; (d) zero-load systole geometry; (e) fiber orientation from a human heart; (f) model with marked fiber orientations; (g) model with patch and scar; (h) two-layer structure.
Fig 2.
Recorded patient-specific pressure profiles and pressure conditions imposed on computational models.
(a) Recorded RV pressure profile; (b) RV pressure condition used in the model with Pmin (begin-filling), Pdia (end-filling), Pmax, (begin-ejection) and Psys (end-ejection) marked; (c) recorded aorta pressure profile; (d) recorded LV pressure profile.
Fig 3.
Material Stress-Stretch curves used for the new 2G and old 1G models.
(a) Stress-stretch curves for patch, scar and ventricle tissue used in 1G model; (b) stress-stretch curves used for the diastole phase in the 2G model; (c) stress-stretch curves used for the systole phase in the 2G model. Tff: stress in fiber direction; Tcc: stress in cross-fiber direction.
Fig 4.
Computational volume results from 1G and 2G models.
(a) 1G model agreement with CMR data; (b) 2G model agreement with CMR data.
Table 2.
Comparison of average stress results from the new (2G) and old (1G) models.
BF: Begin-Filling; BE: Begin-Ejection; EF: End-Filling; EE: End-Ejection.
Fig 5.
Stress plots from 1G and 2G models showing large differences.
(a) 1G model, begin-ejection; (b) 2G model, begin-ejection; (c) 2G model, end-filling; (d) 1G model, begin-filling; (e) 2G model, end-ejection; (f) 2G model, begin-filling. Note: (a)-(c) all with maximum RV volume; (d)-(f) all with minimum RV volume.
Table 3.
Comparison of average strain results from the 1G and 2G models.
Fig 6.
Strain plots from 1G and 2G models showing large differences.
(a) 1G model, begin-ejection; (b) 2G model, begin-ejection; (c) 2G model, end-filling; (d) 1G model, begin-filling; (e) 2G model, end-ejection; (f) 2G model, begin-filling. Note: (a)-(c) all with maximum RV volume; (d)-(f) all with minimum RV volume.
Fig 7.
Stress and strain variations (average value on the inner RV surface) in one cardiac cycle from a TOF patient showing the difference between the two models.
Sudden increase at the end of diastole and sudden decrease at the end of systole reflected our omission of the two isovolumic phases. (a) Average stress from the old 1G model; (b) average stress from the new 2G model; (c) Average strain from the 1G model; (d) average strain from the 2G model.
Table 4.
Comparison of RV wall thickness and curvatures results from the 1G and 2G models.
Table 5.
P-values of model result comparisons using pairwise T-test and Linear Mixed Effect (LME) models.
p = 0.00000 indicates that p < 0.00001. Begin-ejection = begin-systole; end-ejection = end-systole in 2G model.
Table 6.
Summary of geometric and stress/strain parameters averaged in each patient at begin-ejection and their correlations with RVEF change.
Table 7.
Comparison of RV wall thickness, circumferential and longitudinal curvature and stress/strain between Group 1 and Group 2 at begin-filling, end-filling, begin-ejection, and end-ejection showing stress is the only parameter with significant difference between the two groups.
Table 8.
Prediction sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values RV parameters for outcome group prediction by the logistic regression method.