Background and Purpose: Reported cutoff values of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) for the diagnosis of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) are inconsistent. This hampers ONSD as a possible noninvasive bedside monitoring tool for ICP. Because the influence of methodological differences on variations in cutoff values is unknown, we performed a narrative review to identify discrepancies in ONSD assessment methodologies and to investigate their effect on reported ONSD values. Methods: We used a structured and quantitative approach in which each ONSD methodology found in the reviewed articles was categorized based on the characteristic appearance of the ultrasound images and ultrasound marker placement. Subsequently, we investigated the influence of the different methodologies on ONSD values by organizing the ONSDs with respect to these categories. Results: In a total of 63 eligible articles, we could determine the applied ONSD assessment methodology. Reported ultrasound images either showed the optic nerve and its sheath as a dark region with hyperechoic striped band at its edges or as a single dark region surrounded by lighter retrobulbar fat. Four different ultrasound marker positions were used to delineate the optic nerve sheath, which resulted in different ONSD values and more importantly, different sensitivities to changes in ICP. Conclusions: Based on our observations, we recommend to place ultrasound markers at the outer edges of the hyperechoic striped bands or at the transitions from the single dark region to the hyperechoic retrobulbar fat because these locations yielded the highest sensitivity of ONSD measurements for increased ICP.

The preferred vascular access for hemodialysis is an autologous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in the arm: a surgically created connection between an artery and vein. The surgeon selects the AVF location based on experience and preoperative diagnostics. However, 20-50% of all lower arm AVFs are hampered by a too low access flow, whereas complications associated with too high flows are observed in 20% of all upper arm AVFs. We hypothesize that a pulse wave propagation model fed by patient-specific data has the ability to assist the surgeon in selecting the optimal AVF configuration by predicting direct postoperative flow. Previously, a 1D wave propagation model (spectral elements) was developed in which an approximated velocity profile was assumed based on boundary layer theory. In this study, we derived a distributed lumped parameter implementation of the pulse wave propagation model. The elements of the electrical analog for a segment are based on the approximated velocity profiles and dependent on the Womersley number. We present the application of the lumped parameter pulse wave propagation model to vascular access surgery and show how a patient-specific model is able to predict the hemodynamical impact of AVF creation and might assist in vascular access planning. The lumped parameter pulse wave propagation model was able to select the same AVF configuration as an experienced surgeon in nine out of ten patients. In addition, in six out of ten patients predicted postoperative flows were in the same order of magnitude as measured postoperative flows. Future research should quantify uncertainty in model predictions and measurements.

The aim of this position paper is to provide a brief overview of the current status of cardiovascular modelling and of the processes required and some of the challenges to be addressed to see wider exploitation in both personal health management and clinical practice. In most branches of engineering the concept of the digital twin, informed by extensive and continuous monitoring and coupled with robust data assimilation and simulation techniques, is gaining traction: the Gartner Group listed it as one of the top ten digital trends in 2018. The cardiovascular modelling community is starting to develop a much more systematic approach to the combination of physics, mathematics, control theory, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer science and advanced engineering methodology, as well as working more closely with the clinical community to better understand and exploit physiological measurements, and indeed to develop jointly better measurement protocols informed by model-based understanding. Developments in physiological modelling, model personalisation, model outcome uncertainty, and the role of models in clinical decision support are addressed and 'where-next' steps and challenges discussed.