Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Intravascular ultrasound wall shear stress imaging in stented coronary arteries with ultrafast Doppler
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 09 April 2026

Intravascular ultrasound wall shear stress imaging in stented coronary arteries with ultrafast Doppler

  • Travis C. Singh1,
  • Stephan Strassle Rojas1,2,
  • Imran Shah1,
  • Jimena Martín Tempestti3,
  • Alessandro Veneziani3,4 &
  • …
  • Brooks D. Lindsey1,2 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Cardiology
  • Computational biology and bioinformatics
  • Diseases
  • Medical research

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common minimally-invasive procedure for treating coronary artery stenosis. However, 10% of patients with non-complex lesions experience restenosis within five years of initial PCI. Wall shear stress (WSS) is a physiological marker that provides additional predictive value for restenosis. The ability to estimate WSS during PCI could identify patients at high risk for restenosis. In order to assess the accuracy of intravascular ultrasound WSS imaging in coronary geometries, a high-frequency linear array was used to image three unique coronary phantom geometries before stenting and with partially- and fully-expanded stents. Acquired 2D WSS images were registered and compared with 3D in silico results. Finally, 3D images were acquired in a single geometry using a newly-developed intravascular ultrasound matrix array. Ultrasound-derived flow velocity maps demonstrated a mean absolute percentage error of 13.04 ± 4.82% relative to simulations, with a mean correlation of 81.91 ± 14.59%. Segments with partially-expanded stents exhibited decreased mean WSS (0.0800 ± 0.0233 Pa vs. 0.1328 ± 0.0265 Pa, p = 0.0479) and increased WSS spatial variance (0.0038 ± 0.0011 Pa2 vs. 0.00069 ± 0.000090 Pa2, p = 0.0546) compared to segments with fully expanded stents. Accurate WSS imaging during PCI could stratify restenosis risk and inform long-term coronary modeling (i.e. digital twin system).

Data availability

The data acquired is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Khan, M. A. et al. Global epidemiology of ischemic heart disease: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cureus 12(7), e9349 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ralapanawa, U. & Sivakanesan, R. Epidemiology and the magnitude of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome: A narrative review. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 11(2), 169–177 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bentzon, J. F. et al. Mechanisms of plaque formation and rupture. Circ. Res. 114 (12), 1852–1866 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shahjehan, R. D., Sharma, S. & Bhutta, B. S. Coronary Artery Disease. In StatPearls (Treasure Island, FL, 2025).

  5. Gerber, Y. et al. Coronary revascularization in the community. A population-based study, 1990 to 2004. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50 (13), 1223–1229 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jennings, S. et al. Trends in percutaneous coronary intervention and angiography in Ireland, 2004–2011: Implications for Ireland and Europe. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vessel. 4, 35–39 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Head, S. J. et al. Current practice of state-of-the-art surgical coronary revascularization. Circulation 136(14), 1331–1345 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liu, H. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 35,409 patients undergoing PCI versus CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery diseases. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 25(8), 282 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bajeu, I. T. et al. Intrastent restenosis: A comprehensive review.. Int. J. Mol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25031715 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Choi, K. H. et al. Prognostic Impact of Operator Experience and IVUS Guidance on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Complex PCI. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 16 (14), 1746–1758 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dangas, G. D. et al. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era.. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56(23), 1897–907 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Groenland, F. T. W. et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Int. J. Cardiol. 353, 35–42 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mauri, L. et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting and bare-metal stenting in Massachusetts. Circulation 118 (18), 1817–1827 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zahn, R. et al. Incidence and predictors of target vessel revascularization and clinical event rates of the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Stent Registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 95(11), 1302–8 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Xu, N. et al. Five-year outcomes of biodegradable versus second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents used in complex percutaneous coronary intervention. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 136(3), 322–330 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ding, D. et al. Immediate post-procedural functional assessment of percutaneous coronary intervention: Current evidence and future directions. Eur. Heart J. 42(27), 2695–2707 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Byrne, R. A. et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur. Heart J. 12 (38), 3720–3826 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lawton, J. S. et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 145(3), e18–e114 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Park, H. et al. Optimal stenting technique for complex coronary lesions: intracoronary imaging-guided pre-dilation, stent sizing, and post-dilation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv 13(12), 1403–1413 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, D. A. et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention: outcomes from the Pan-London PCI cohort. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv 11(14), 1313–1321 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mintz, G. S. Clinical utility of intravascular imaging and physiology in coronary artery disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64 (2), 207–222 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maehara, A. et al. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided coronary stent implantation: A critical appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 10(12), 1487–1503 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. De Bruyne, B. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl. J. Med. 371 (13), 1208–1217 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Zandvoort, L. J. C. et al. Improving PCI outcomes using postprocedural physiology and intravascular imaging. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv 14(22), 2415–2430 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ng, J. et al. Local hemodynamic forces after stenting implications on restenosis and thrombosis. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vascular Biology 37(12), 2231–2242 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Truesdell, A. G. et al. Intravascular imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention: JACC state-of-the-art review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 81(6), 590–605 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tempestti, M. A pseudo-spectral method for wall shear stress estimation from Doppler ultrasound imaging in coronary arteries. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 15(6), 647–666 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Katritsis, D. et al. Wall shear stress: theoretical considerations and methods of measurement. Prog Cardiovasc. Dis. 49 (5), 307–329 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Candreva, A. et al. Impact of endothelial shear stress on coronary atherosclerotic plaque progression and composition: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Int. J. Cardiol. 407, 132061 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Papafaklis, M. I. et al. Effect of the local hemodynamic environment on the de novo development and progression of eccentric coronary atherosclerosis in humans: insights from PREDICTION. Atherosclerosis 240 (1), 205–211 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stone, P. H. et al. Role of low endothelial shear stress and plaque characteristics in the prediction of nonculprit major adverse cardiac events: The PROSPECT study. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 11(3), 462–471 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chiastra, C. et al. Coronary artery stenting affects wall shear stress topological skeleton.. J. Biomech. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053503 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Candreva, A. et al. Influence of intracoronary hemodynamic forces on atherosclerotic plaque phenotypes. Int. J. Cardiol. 399, 131668 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cecchi, E. et al. Role of hemodynamic shear stress in cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis 214 (2), 249–256 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dolan, J. M., Kolega, J. & Meng, H. High wall shear stress and spatial gradients in vascular pathology: a review. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41 (7), 1411–1427 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Eshtehardi, P. et al. High wall shear stress and high-risk plaque: an emerging concept. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 33 (7), 1089–1099 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Salmasi, M. Y. et al. High wall shear stress can predict wall degradation in ascending aortic aneurysms: An integrated biomechanics study. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9, 750656 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Elliott, M. C., Blair, J. & Menary, R. Highlighting hemodynamic risks for bioresorbable stents in coronary arteries. Fluids 8(9), 241 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kumar, S. et al. Stent underexpansion is associated with high wall shear stress: a biomechanical analysis of the shear stent study. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. 39 (7), 1375–1382 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Shah, I. et al. Impact of the stent footprint on endothelial wall shear stress in patient-specific coronary arteries: A computational analysis from the SHEAR-STENT trial. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 266, 108762 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wu, W. et al. Hemodynamic microenvironment of coronary stent strut malapposition. Comput. Biol. Med. 184, 109378 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Carrizo, S. et al. Functional assessment of coronary artery disease by intravascular ultrasound and computational fluid dynamics simulation. Rev. Port Cardiol. 33 (10), 645e1–645e4 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sun, Z. & Xu, L. Computational fluid dynamics in coronary artery disease. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 38(8), 651–663 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang, J. M. et al. Perspective on CFD studies of coronary artery disease lesions and hemodynamics: a review. Int. J. Numer. Method Biomed. Eng. 30 (6), 659–680 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Candreva, A. et al. Current and future applications of computational fluid dynamics in coronary artery disease. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 23(11), 377 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Morris, P. D. et al. Virtual fractional flow reserve from coronary angiography: Modeling the significance of coronary lesions: Results from the VIRTU-1 (VIRTUal Fractional Flow Reserve From Coronary Angiography) study.. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 6(2), 149–57 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Balossino, R. et al. Effects of different stent designs on local hemodynamics in stented arteries. J. Biomech. 41 (5), 1053–1061 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Beier, S. et al. Hemodynamics in idealized stented coronary arteries: Important stent design considerations. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44(2), 315–329 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Duraiswamy, N., Schoephoerster, R. T. & Moore, J. E. Jr. Comparison of near-wall hemodynamic parameters in stented artery models. J. Biomech. Eng. 131 (6), 061006 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  50. LaDisa, J. F. Jr. et al. Stent design properties and deployment ratio influence indexes of wall shear stress: a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics investigation within a normal artery. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985). 97 (1), 424–430 (2004). discussion 416.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Beyene, S. et al. Comparison of endothelial shear stress between ultrathin strut bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent vs durable-polymer drug-eluting stent post-stent implantation: An optical coherence tomography substudy from BIOFLOW II. Cardiovasc. Revasc Med. 61, 26–34 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chiastra, C. et al. Patient-specific modeling of stented coronary arteries reconstructed from optical coherence tomography: Towards a widespread clinical use of fluid dynamics analyses. J. Cardiovasc. Transl Res. 11(2), 156–172 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Migliori, S. et al. Application of an OCT-based 3D reconstruction framework to the hemodynamic assessment of an ulcerated coronary artery plaque. Med. Eng. Phys. 78, 74–81 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wu, W. et al. Three dimensional reconstruction of coronary artery stents from optical coherence tomography: experimental validation and clinical feasibility. Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 12252 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bourantas, C. V. et al. Effect of the endothelial shear stress patterns on neointimal proliferation following drug-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation: an optical coherence tomography study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7 (3), 315–324 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Beyene, S. et al. Comparison of endothelial shear stress between ultrathin strut bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stent vs durable-polymer drug-eluting stent post-stent implantation: An optical coherence tomography substudy from BIOFLOW II. Cardiovasc. Revascularization Med. 61, 26–34 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tenekecioglu, E. et al. Early strut protrusion and late neointima thickness in the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold: A serial wall shear stress analysis up to five years. EuroIntervention 15(4), e370–e379 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cheng, C. P., Parker, D. & Taylor, C. A. Quantification of wall shear stress in large blood vessels using Lagrangian interpolation functions with cine phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 30 (8), 1020–1032 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Fonken, J. et al. The impact of a limited field-of-view on computed hemodynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms: evaluating the feasibility of completing ultrasound segmentations with parametric geometries. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 51(6), 1296–1309 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Johnson, K., Sharma, P. & Oshinski, J. Coronary artery flow measurement using navigator echo gated phase contrast magnetic resonance velocity mapping at 3.0 T. J. Biomech. 41 (3), 595–602 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pantos, I. et al. In vivo wall shear stress measurements using phase-contrast MRI. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 5 (5), 927–938 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wang, I. C. et al. Wall shear stress mapping for human femoral artery based on ultrafast ultrasound vector Doppler estimations. Med. Phys. 48 (11), 6755–6764 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Xiaoyong, T. Y., Wei, C., Juan, H., Feng, C. & Zhuo, Q. L. Evaluation efficacy wall shear stress carotid artery stenting. Heliyon 10(11) (2024).

  64. Aizawa, K. et al. Brachial artery vasodilatory response and wall shear rate determined by multigate Doppler in a healthy young cohort. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985). 124 (1), 150–159 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Huang, Y. H. et al. Estimation of mouse carotid arterial wall shear stress using high-frequency ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 70(6), 474–485 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yiu, B. Y. & Yu, A. C. Least-squares multi-angle Doppler estimators for plane-wave vector flow imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 63(11), 1733–1744 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lindsey, B. D. et al. 3-D intravascular characterization of blood flow velocity fields with a forward-viewing 2-D array. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 46(9), 2560–2571 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rojas, S. S. et al. High-frequency, 2-mm-diameter forward-viewing 2-D array for 3-D Intracoronary blood flow imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 71(8), 1051–1061 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Douglas, J. S. Jr. et al. Coronary stent restenosis in patients treated with cilostazol. Circulation 112 (18), 2826–2832 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Holmes, D. R. Jr. et al. ACCF/AHA clopidogrel clinical alert: approaches to the FDA boxed warning: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on clinical expert consensus documents and the American Heart Association endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56 (4), 321–341 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Dziopa, K. et al. Digital twins: reimagining the future of cardiovascular risk prediction and personalised care. Hellenic J. Cardiol. 81, 4–8 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sel, K. et al. Building digital twins for cardiovascular health: From principles to clinical impact. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 13(19), e031981 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Akhtar, S. et al. CFD analysis on blood flow inside a symmetric stenosed artery: Physiology of a coronary artery disease. Sci. Prog. 106 (2), 368504231180092 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Timofeeva, M. et al. Numerical simulation of the blood flow through the coronary artery stenosis: Effects of varying eccentricity. Comput. Biol. Med. 146, 105672 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Eslami, P. et al. Effect of wall elasticity on hemodynamics and wall shear stress in patient-specific simulations in the coronary arteries. J. Biomech. Eng. 142(2), 0245031–02450310 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Samady, H. et al. Coronary artery wall shear stress is associated with progression and transformation of atherosclerotic plaque and arterial remodeling in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 124(7), 779–788 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Suo, J., Oshinski, J. N. & Giddens, D. P. Blood flow patterns in the proximal human coronary arteries: Relationship to atherosclerotic plaque occurrence. Mol. Cell. Biomech. 5(1), 9–18 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Veneziani, A. & Vergara, C. Flow rate defective boundary conditions in haemodynamics simulations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids. 47 (8–9), 803–816 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Da Veiga, L. B. et al. The virtual element method. Acta Numerica. 32, 123–202 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  80. da Veiga, L. B., Mora, D. & Vacca, G. The stokes complex for virtual elements with application to navier-stokes flows. J. Sci. Comput. 81(2), 990–1018 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Jin, X. W. et al. NSFnets (Navier-Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.. J. Comput. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109951 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Oldenburg, J. et al. Geometry aware physics informed neural network surrogate for solving Navier-Stokes equation (GAPINN).. Adv. Model. Simul. Eng. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40323-022-00221-z (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Taylor, C. A. & Figueroa, C. A. Patient-specific modeling of cardiovascular mechanics. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 11, 109–134 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Formaggia, L., Quarteroni, A. & Veneziani, A. Cardiovascular Mathematics: Modeling and simulation of the circulatory system Vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Formaggia, L., Lamponi, D. & Quarteroni, A. One-dimensional models for blood flow in arteries. J. Eng. Math. 47 (3–4), 251–276 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Chiastra, C. et al. On the necessity of modelling fluid-structure interaction for stented coronary arteries. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 34, 217–230 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zeng, D. et al. Effects of cardiac motion on right coronary artery hemodynamics. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 31 (4), 420–429 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Kim, S. et al. Dynamic coronary blood flow velocity and wall shear stress estimation using ultrasound in an ex vivo porcine heart. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 15(1), 65–76 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tierney, J. et al. Adaptive clutter demodulation for non-contrast ultrasound perfusion imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 36(9), 1979–1991 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Tierney, J. et al. Independent component-based spatiotemporal clutter filtering for slow flow ultrasound. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 39(5), 1472–1482 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ozgun, K. A. & Byram, B. C. Multidimensional clutter filtering of aperture domain data for improved blood flow sensitivity. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 68(8), 2645–2656 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kripfgans, O. D. et al. Three-dimensional US for quantification of volumetric blood flow: multisite multisystem results from within the quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance. Radiology 296(3), 662–670 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Pinter, S. Z. et al. Color flow ultrasound spatial sampling beam density for partial volume-corrected three-dimensional volume flow (3DVF): Theory, simulation, and experiment. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 50(8), 1122–1133 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Welsh, A. W. et al. Three-dimensional US fractional moving blood volume: Validation of renal perfusion quantification. Radiology 293(2), 460–468 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Lefieux, A. et al. Semi-automatic reconstruction of patient-specific stented coronaries based on data assimilation and computer aided design. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 13(4), 517–534 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Nannini, G. et al. An automated and time-efficient framework for simulation of coronary blood flow under steady and pulsatile conditions. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 257, 108415 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Dodge, J. T. Jr. et al. Lumen diameter of normal human coronary arteries. Influence of age, sex, anatomic variation, and left ventricular hypertrophy or dilation. Circulation 86 (1), 232–246 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Adjedj, J. et al. Visual and quantitative assessment of coronary stenoses at angiography versus fractional flow reserve: The impact of risk factors.. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.006243 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Harris, P. J. et al. The prognostic significance of 50% coronary stenosis in medically treated patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 62 (2), 240–248 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Yadalam, P. K. et al. Advanced machine learning for estimating vascular occlusion percentage in patients with ischemic heart disease and periodontitis. Int. J. Cardiol. Cardiovasc. Risk Prev. 21, 200291 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Rosenthal, R. L. The 50% coronary stenosis. Am. J. Cardiol. 115 (8), 1162–1165 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Tonino, P. A. et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55 (25), 2816–2821 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Madsen, E. L. et al. Tissue mimicking materials for ultrasound phantoms. Med. Phys. 5 (5), 391–394 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Telichko, A. V., Dahl, J. J. & Herickhoff, C. D. Cylindrical transducer array for intravascular shear wave elasticity imaging: Preliminary development. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 69(3), 1077–1087 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Neumann, F. J. et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 40 (2), 87–165 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ng, J. C. K. et al. Stent malapposition generates stent thrombosis: Insights from a thrombosis model. Int. J. Cardiol. 353, 43–45 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Lindsey, B. D. et al. Acoustic characterization of contrast-to-tissue ratio and axial resolution for dual-frequency contrast-specific acoustic angiography imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 61 (10), 1668–1687 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  108. de Bruyne, B. et al. Simultaneous coronary pressure and flow velocity measurements in humans. Feasibility, reproducibility, and hemodynamic dependence of coronary flow velocity reserve, hyperemic flow versus pressure slope index, and fractional flow reserve. Circulation 94 (8), 1842–1849 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Hozumi, T. et al. Noninvasive assessment of coronary flow velocity and coronary flow velocity reserve in the left anterior descending coronary artery by Doppler echocardiography: comparison with invasive technique. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 32 (5), 1251–1259 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Kumar, A. et al. High coronary shear stress in patients with coronary artery disease predicts myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72(16), 1926–1935 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Kumar, A. et al. Low coronary wall shear stress is associated with severe endothelial dysfunction in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. JACC: Cardiovasc. Interventions. 11 (20), 2072–2080 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Tufaro, V. et al. Can fast wall shear stress computation predict adverse cardiac events in patients with intermediate non-flow limiting stenoses? Atherosclerosis 401, 119099 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Demene, C. et al. Spatiotemporal clutter filtering of Ultrafast ultrasound data highly increases Doppler and fUltrasound sensitivity. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34(11), 2271–2285 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Jensen, J., Stuart, M. B. & Jensen, J. A. High frame rate vector velocity estimation using plane waves and transverse oscillation. In IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 1–4 (2015).

  115. Jing, B. et al. A transverse velocity spectral estimation method for ultrafast ultrasound Doppler imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 70(12), 1749–1760 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Pihl, M. J. & Jensen, J. A. A transverse oscillation approach for estimation of three-dimensional velocity vectors, part I: concept and simulation study. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 61 (10), 1599–1607 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Cignoni, P. et al. Meshlab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In Eurographics Italian chapter conference (Salerno, 2008).

  118. Autodesk About Autodesk® Netfabb® (2022).

  119. Izzo, R. et al. The vascular modeling toolkit: a python library for the analysis of tubular structures in medical images. J. Open. Source Softw. 3 (25), 745 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Heywood, J. G., Rannacher, R. & Turek, S. Artificial boundaries and flux and pressure conditions for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids. 22 (5), 325–352 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Myronenko, A. & Song, X. Point set registration: Coherent point drift. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 32(12), 2262–2275 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  122. Zhang, J., Yao, Y. & Deng, B. Fast and robust iterative closest point. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 44(7), 3450–3466 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Amauri Assef, D.Sc. for assistance with phantom fabrication and Verasonics, and John Oshinski, Ph.D. and William Nicholson, M.D., for helpful discussions, and thank Dr. Laxminarayanan Krishnan for technical expertise and assistance help with micro-CT imaging. This work is supported by R01EB031101 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Some of the work was performed at the Georgia Tech Institute for Matter and Systems, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (ECCS-2025462). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.

Funding

The research leading to these results received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health under grant R01EB031101. Some of the work was performed at the Georgia Tech Institutes for Matter and Systems, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (ECCS-2025462). The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, 313 Ferst Dr. NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Travis C. Singh, Stephan Strassle Rojas, Imran Shah & Brooks D. Lindsey

  2. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 791 Atlantic Dr. NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Stephan Strassle Rojas & Brooks D. Lindsey

  3. Department of Mathematics, Emory University, 301 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Jimena Martín Tempestti & Alessandro Veneziani

  4. Department of Computer Science, Emory University, 400 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Alessandro Veneziani

Authors
  1. Travis C. Singh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan Strassle Rojas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Imran Shah
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jimena Martín Tempestti
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandro Veneziani
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brooks D. Lindsey
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TCS and BDL conceived and designed the study. TCS collected, processed, and segmented all US and CT data. SSR designed and fabricated FV-IVUS 2D array and collected all 3D US data. AV generated meshes for CFD simulations. IS and JMT performed all CFD simulations. TCS performed analysis. TCS, BDL, AV and IS wrote the manuscript. BDL and AV secured funding and supervised the research. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brooks D. Lindsey.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, T.C., Strassle Rojas, S., Shah, I. et al. Intravascular ultrasound wall shear stress imaging in stented coronary arteries with ultrafast Doppler. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47719-9

Download citation

  • Received: 15 August 2025

  • Accepted: 02 April 2026

  • Published: 09 April 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47719-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Wall shear stress
  • Intravascular ultrasound
  • Stent malapposition
  • Blood flow velocity
  • Coronary artery
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention optimization
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing