Literature DB >> 21703637

Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves.

Torsten Doenst1, Paulo A Amorim, Nidal Al-Alam, Sven Lehmann, Chirojit Mukherjee, Gloria Faerber.   

Abstract

Heated debates revolve around the hemodynamic performance of stented aortic tissue valves. Because the opening area strongly influences the generation of a pressure gradient over the prosthesis, and the outer diameter determines which valve actually fits into the aortic root, it would seem logical that the valve with the greatest opening area in relation to its outer diameter should allow the best hemodynamic performance. Interestingly, neither of these 2 parameters is reflected by the manufacturing companies' size labels or suggested sizing strategies. In addition, it is known that valves with the same size label from different companies may differ significantly in their actual dimension (outer diameter). Finally, the manufacturer-suggested sizing strategies differ so much that expected differences from valve design may get lost because of differences in sizing. These size and sizing differences and the lack of information on the geometric opening area complicate true hemodynamic comparisons significantly. Furthermore, some fluid dynamic considerations regarding the determination of opening area by echocardiography (the effective orifice area) introduce additional obscuring factors in the attempt to compare hemodynamic performance data of different stented tissue valves. We analyzed the true dimensions of different tissue prostheses and the manufacturer-suggested sizing strategies in relation to published effective orifice areas. We have demonstrated how sizing and implantation strategy have much greater impact on postoperative valve hemodynamics than valve brand or type. In addition, our findings may explain the different opinions regarding valve hemodynamics of different tissue valves.
Copyright © 2011 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21703637     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  6 in total

1.  Opening-closing pattern of four pericardial prostheses: results from an in vitro study of leaflet kinematics.

Authors:  Giordano Tasca; Gianfranco Beniamino Fiore; Andrea Mangini; Claudia Romagnoni; Amando Gamba; Alberto Redaelli; Carlo Antona; Riccardo Vismara
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 1.731

Review 2.  Challenges in valve-in-valve therapy.

Authors:  Alia Noorani; Rahee Radia; Vinayak Bapat
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Late clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves.

Authors:  Hyoung Woo Chang; Wook Sung Kim; Joong Hyun Ahn; Keumhee C Carriere; Dong Seop Jeong; Yang Hyun Cho; Kiick Sung; Pyo Won Park
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Determinants of effective orifice area in aortic valve replacement: anatomic and clinical factors.

Authors:  Hee Jung Kim; Sung Jun Park; Hyun Jung Koo; Joon-Won Kang; Dong Hyun Yang; Sung-Ho Jung; Suk Jung Choo; Cheol Hyun Chung; Jae Won Lee; Joon Bum Kim
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Early Hemodynamics after Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Serik Aitaliyev; Egle Rumbinaitė; Karolina Mėlinytė-Ankudavičė; Rokas Nekrošius; Vytenis Keturakis; Rimantas Benetis
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.430

6.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve-in-valve: Future implications for the surgeon.

Authors:  Robert J Steffen; Vinayak N Bapat
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2022-02-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.