Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1005–1030 | Cite as

A CFD-based Kriging surrogate modeling approach for predicting device-specific hemolysis power law coefficients in blood-contacting medical devices

  • Brent A. CravenEmail author
  • Kenneth I. Aycock
  • Luke H. Herbertson
  • Richard A. Malinauskas
Original Paper
  • 122 Downloads

Abstract

Most stress-based hemolysis models used in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are based on an empirical power law correlation between hemolysis generation and the flow-induced stress and exposure time. Empirical model coefficients are typically determined by fitting global hemolysis measurements in simplified blood shearing devices under uniform shear conditions and with well-defined exposure times. CFD simulations using these idealized global empirical coefficients are then performed to predict hemolysis in a medical device with complex hemodynamics. The applicability, however, of this traditional approach of using idealized coefficients for a real device with varying exposure times and non-uniform shear is currently unknown. In this study, we propose a new approach for determining device- and species-specific hemolysis power law coefficients (C, a, and b). The approach consists of calculating multiple hemolysis solutions using different sets of coefficients to map the hemolysis response field in three-dimensional (C, a, b) parameter space. The resultant response field is then compared with experimental data in the same device to determine the coefficients that when incorporated into the locally defined power law model yield correct global hemolysis predictions. We first develop the generalized approach by deriving analytical solutions for simple uniform and non-uniform shear flows (planar Couette flow and circular Poiseuille flow, respectively) that allow us to continuously map the hemolysis solution in (C, a, b) parameter space. We then extend our approach to more practical cases relevant to blood-contacting medical devices by replacing the requirement for an analytical solution in our generalized approach with CFD and Kriging surrogate modeling. Finally, we apply our verified CFD-based Kriging surrogate modeling approach to predict the device- and species-specific power law coefficients for developing laminar flow in a small capillary tube. We show that the resultant coefficients are much different than traditional idealized coefficients obtained from simplified uniform shear experiments and that using such idealized coefficients yields a highly inaccurate prediction of hemolysis that is in error by more than 2000% compared to experiments. Our approach and surrogate modeling framework may be applied to more complex medical devices and readily extended to determine empirical coefficients for other continuum-based models of hemolysis and other forms of flow-induced blood damage (e.g., platelet activation and thrombosis).

Keywords

Hemolysis Blood damage Power law model Kriging surrogate modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank C. Paulson and P. Hariharan for helpful discussions. We also thank T. Zhang for clarifying the development of the power law coefficients for ovine blood that are provided in Table 1. Additionally, thanks to M. Myers and T. Morrison for reviewing the manuscript. This study used the computational resources of the high-performance computing clusters at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The findings and conclusions in this article have not been formally disseminated by the US FDA and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alemu Y, Bluestein D (2007) Flow-induced platelet activation and damage accumulation in a mechanical heart valve: numerical studies. Artif Organs 31(9):677–688.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2007.00446.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apel J, Paul R, Klaus S, Siess T, Reul H (2001) Assessment of hemolysis related quantities in a microaxial blood pump by computational fluid dynamics. Artif Organs 25(5):341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora D, Behr M, Pasquali M (2004) A tensor-based measure for estimating blood damage. Artif Organs 28(11):1002–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aycock KI, Campbell RL, Lynch FC, Manning KB, Craven BA (2016) The importance of hemorheology and patient anatomy on the hemodynamics in the inferior vena cava. Ann Biomed Eng 44(12):3568–3582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN (2002) Transport phenomena, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackshear PL Jr, Dorman FD, Steinbach JH (1965) Some mechanical effects that influence hemolysis. ASAIO J 11(1):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackshear P Jr, Dorman F, Steinbach J, Maybach E, Singh A, Collingham R (1966) Shear, wall interaction and hemolysis. ASAIO J 12(1):113–120Google Scholar
  8. Bludszuweit C (1995) Three-dimensional numerical prediction of stress loading of blood particles in a centrifugal pump. Artif Organs 19(7):590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodnár T (2014) On the Eulerian formulation of a stress induced platelet activation function. Math Biosci 257:91–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2014.06.010 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs C, Bain BJ (2017) Dacie and Lewis practical haematology, chap 3: basic haematological techniques. 12th edn. Elsevier, London, pp 18–49Google Scholar
  11. Chen Y, Sharp MK (2010) A strain-based flow-induced hemolysis prediction model calibrated by in vitro erythrocyte deformation measurements. Artif Organs 35(2):145–156Google Scholar
  12. Ding J, Niu S, Chen Z, Zhang T, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2015) Shear-induced hemolysis: species differences. Artif Organs 39(9):795–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ezzeldin HM, de Tullio MD, Vanella M, Solares SD, Balaras E (2015) A strain-based model for mechanical hemolysis based on a coarse-grained red blood cell model. Ann Biomed Eng 43(6):1398–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faghih MM, Sharp MK (2016) Extending the power-law hemolysis model to complex flows. J Biomech Eng 138(12):124504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faghih MM, Sharp MK (2018) Characterization of erythrocyte membrane tension for hemolysis prediction in complex flows. Biomech Model Mechanobiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-017-0995-2
  16. Forrester A, Sobester A, Keane A (2008) Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser KH, Zhang T, Ertan Taskin M, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2012) A quantitative comparison of mechanical blood damage parameters in rotary ventricular assist devices: shear stress, exposure time and hemolysis index. J Biomech Eng 134(8):081002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garon A, Farinas MI (2004) Fast three-dimensional numerical hemolysis approximation. Artif Organs 28(11):1016–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giersiepen M, Wurzinger L, Opitz R, Reul H (1990) Estimation of shear stress-related blood damage in heart valve prostheses-in vitro comparison of 25 aortic valves. Int J Artif Organs 13(5):300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goubergrits L, Affeld K (2004) Numerical estimation of blood damage in artificial organs. Artif Organs 28(5):499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goubergrits L, Osman J, Mevert R, Kertzscher U, Pöthkow K, Hege HC (2016) Turbulence in blood damage modeling. Int J Artif Organs 39(4):160–165.  https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grigioni M, Daniele C, Morbiducci U, D’Avenio G, Di Benedetto G, Barbaro V (2004) The power-law mathematical model for blood damage prediction: analytical developments and physical inconsistencies. Artif Organs 28(5):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grigioni M, Morbiducci U, D’Avenio G, Benedetto GD, Gaudio CD (2005) A novel formulation for blood trauma prediction by a modified power-law mathematical model. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 4(4):249–260.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-005-0005-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hariharan P, D’Souza G, Horner M, Malinauskas R, Myers M (2015) Verification benchmarks to assess the implementation of computational fluid dynamics based hemolysis prediction models. J Biomech Eng 137:094501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hariharan P, Aycock KI, Buesen M, Day SW, Good BC, Herbertson LH, Steinseifer U, Manning KB, Craven BA, Malinauskas RA (2018) Inter-laboratory characterization of the velocity field in the FDA blood pump model using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Cardiovasc Eng Technol 9:623–640.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-018-00378-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heck ML, Yen A, Snyder TA, O’Rear EA, Papavassiliou DV (2017) Flow-field simulations and hemolysis estimates for the Food and Drug Administration critical path initiative centrifugal blood pump. Artif Organs 41(10):E129–E140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heuser G, Opitz R (1980) A Couette viscometer for short time shearing of blood. Biorheology 17(1–2):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones DR (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim 21(4):345–383MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Kameneva MV, Antaki JF, Yeleswarapu KK, Watach MJ, Griffith BP, Borovetz HS (1997) Plasma protective effect on red blood cells exposed to mechanical stress. ASAIO J 43(5):M571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kameneva MV, Burgreen GW, Kono K, Repko B, Antaki JF, Umezu M (2004) Effects of turbulent stresses upon mechanical hemolysis: experimental and computational analysis. ASAIO J 50(5):418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kusserow B, Kendall L (1963) In vitro changes in the corpuscular elements of blood flowing in tubular conduits. ASAIO J 9(1):262–268Google Scholar
  32. Malinauskas RA (1997) Plasma hemoglobin measurement techniques for the in vitro evaluation of blood damage caused by medical devices. Artif Organs 21(12):1255–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malinauskas RA, Hariharan P, Day SW, Herbertson LH, Buesen M, Steinseifer U, Aycock KI, Good BC, Deutsch S, Manning KB, Craven BA (2017) FDA benchmark medical device flow models for CFD validation. ASAIO J 63(2):150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Mueller M, Schima H, Engelhardt H, Salat A, Olsen D, Losert U, Wolner E (1993) In vitro hematological testing of rotary blood pumps: remarks on standardization and data interpretation. Artif Organs 17(2):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paulson C, Ragkousis G (2015) pyKriging: a python Kriging toolkit.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21389
  37. Pinotti M, Rosa ES (1995) Computational prediction of hemolysis in a centrifugal ventricular assist device. Artif Organs 19(3):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sohrabi S, Liu Y (2017) A cellular model of shear-induced hemolysis. Artif Organs 41(9):E80–E91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Song X, Throckmorton AL, Wood HG, Antaki JF, Olsen DB (2003) Computational fluid dynamics prediction of blood damage in a centrifugal pump. Artif Organs 27(10):938–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taskin ME, Fraser KH, Zhang T, Wu C, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2012) Evaluation of Eulerian and Lagrangian models for hemolysis estimation. ASAIO J 58(4):363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor JO, Meyer RS, Deutsch S, Manning KB (2016) Development of a computational model for macroscopic predictions of device-induced thrombosis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 15(6):1713–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toninato R, Fadda G, Susin FM (2017) A red blood cell model to estimate the hemolysis fingerprint of cardiovascular devices. Artif Organs.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12937
  43. Trias M, Arbona A, Masso J, Minano B, Bona C (2014) FDA’s nozzle numerical simulation challenge: non-Newtonian fluid effects and blood damage. PLoS ONE 9(3):e92638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vitale F, Nam J, Turchetti L, Behr M, Raphael R, Annesini MC, Pasquali M (2014) A multiscale, biophysical model of flow-induced red blood cell damage. AIChE J 60(4):1509–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White FM (2011) Fluid mechanics, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu H, Engel S, Janiga G, Thévenin D (2017) A review of hemolysis prediction models for computational fluid dynamics. Artif Organs 41(7):603–621.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang T, Taskin ME, Fang HB, Pampori A, Jarvik R, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ (2011) Study of flow-induced hemolysis using novel Couette-type blood-shearing devices. Artif Organs 35(12):1180–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent A. Craven
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kenneth I. Aycock
    • 1
  • Luke H. Herbertson
    • 1
  • Richard A. Malinauskas
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Applied Mechanics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological HealthUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations