Literature DB >> 27230086

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

Giordano Tasca1,2, Gianfranco Beniamino Fiore3,4, Andrea Mangini3,5,4, Claudia Romagnoni5,4, Amando Gamba6, Alberto Redaelli3,4, Carlo Antona5,4, Riccardo Vismara3,4.   

Abstract

Pericardial and porcine stented aortic valves have different leaflet kinematics. To study the biomechanics of a prosthesis thoroughly, the in vitro setting is the most appropriate. The aim of our study was to find out whether the prosthesis design in which the pericardial sheet is outside the stent post might influence the opening and closing patterns of the leaflets. Four pericardial prostheses (Magna Ease [MG] 21, Trifecta [TRI] 21, Soprano-Armonia [SA] 20 and Mitroflow [MF] 23) that fitted aortic roots with a native annulus diameter of 2.1 cm were implanted and their leaflet kinematics was studied by a high-speed digital camera. In the opening phase, MG showed the shortest RVOT and the highest RVOVI, with values of 12 ± 2 and 209 ± 17 ms, respectively. The RVOT of MG was significantly shorter than that of MF (p < 0.01), but not than that of TRI (p = 0.286). Both TRI and SA showed similar opening patterns (TRI: RVOT of 15 ± 3 ms and RVOVI of 132 ± 25 ms; SA: 17 ± 2 ms and 126 ± 19 ms), without statistically significant difference. Conversely, MF showed the slowest profile, with an RVOT of 23 ± 3 ms and an RVOVI of 94 ± 8 ms (Table 1; Fig. 3). The opening/closing profile is not influenced by the position of the pericardial leaflets, but depends on other intrinsic structural characteristics related to the material used for the stent and leaflets. Moreover, the kinematics does not affect the valve performance. Table 1 Kinematics and hydrodynamic results, reported as means and standard deviations, evaluated over the tested heart samples TRI SA MG MF ANOVA TRI versus SA TRI versus MG TRI versus MF SA versus MG SA versus MF MG versus MF p Value p Value p Value p Value p Value p Value p Value ET (ms) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 RVOT (ms) 15 ± 3 17 ± 2 12 ± 2 23 ± 3 <0.01 1.0 0.286 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 SVCT (ms) 247 ± 14 231 ± 15 256 ± 26 241 ± 11 0.170 0.463 0.853 0.931 0.213 1.0 1.0 RVCT (ms) 35 ± 19 52 ± 13 32 ± 17 52 ± 4 0.07 0.474 1.0 0.494 0.236 1.0 0.247 TVCT (ms) 283 ± 10 283 ± 19 289 ± 10 293 ± 11 0.584 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 RVOVI (ms-1) 132 ± 25 126 ± 19 209 ± 17 94 ± 8 <0.01 0.959 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 SVCVI (ms-1) -0.9 ± 0.3 -1.1 ± 0.4 -0.57 ± 0.1 -0.55 ± 0.1 <0.01 1.0 0.353 0.292 0.045 0.04 1.0 RVCVI (ms-1) -16 ± 4 -10 ± 2 -18 ± 6 -10 ± 1 <0.01 0.396 1.0 0.513 0.025 1.0 0.03 Δp (mmHg) 6.7 ± 3.6 10.6 ± 5.5 15.2 ± 7.9 10.7 ± 6.1 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 1.0 <0.01 EOA (cm2) 2.2 ± 1.2 1.7 ± 0.9 1.5 ± 0.8 1.7 ± 0.9 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.01 0.261 0.617 0.11 El  % 7.3 ± 1 11.9 ± 1 15.4 ± 2 11.8 ± 3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 1.00 0.03 CO (L/min) 3.1 ± 0.4 2.8 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.3 3.0 ± 0.5 0.534 0.282 0.792 0.702 0.106 0.552 0.559 ET ejection time, RVOT rapid valve-opening time, SVCT slow valve-closing time, RVCT rapid valve-closing time, TVCT total valve-closing time, RVOVI rapid valve-opening velocity index, SVCVI slow valve-closing velocity index, RVCVI rapid valve-closing velocity index, Δp mean pressure drop, EOA effective orifice area, El % energy loss, CO cardiac output.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult; Aortic valve replacement; Prosthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27230086     DOI: 10.1007/s10047-016-0910-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Artif Organs        ISSN: 1434-7229            Impact factor:   1.731


  20 in total

1.  Role of sinus wall compliance in aortic leaflet function.

Authors:  F Robicsek; M J Thubrikar
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1999-10-15       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Carpentier-Edwards Magna ease versus Magna valves: a comparison of in-vitro valve hydrodynamic performance.

Authors:  Carlo Dal Lin; Tomaso Bottio; Edward Buratto; Vincenzo Tarzia; Giulio Rizzoli; Valentina Savona; Gino Gerosa
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2012-01

3.  A novel approach to the in vitro hydrodynamic study of the aortic valve: mock loop development and test.

Authors:  Riccardo Vismara; Gianfranco B Fiore; Andrea Mangini; Monica Contino; Massimo Lemma; Alberto Redaelli; Carlo Antona
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.872

4.  Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves.

Authors:  Gino Gerosa; Vincenzo Tarzia; Giulio Rizzoli; Tomaso Bottio
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.209

5.  Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants.

Authors:  Douglas R Johnston; Edward G Soltesz; Nakul Vakil; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Eric E Roselli; Joseph F Sabik; Nicholas G Smedira; Lars G Svensson; Bruce W Lytle; Eugene H Blackstone
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Opening and closing kinematics of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Farhad Bakhtiary; Omer Dzemali; Ulrich Steinseiffer; Christof Schmitz; Birgit Glasmacher; Anton Moritz; Peter Kleine
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  In vitro study of the aortic interleaflet triangle reshaping.

Authors:  R Vismara; A M Leopaldi; A Mangini; C Romagnoni; M Contino; C Antona; G B Fiore
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  The influence of leaflet skin friction and stiffness on the performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Authors:  K Dellimore; I Kemp; C Scheffer; H Weich; A Doubell
Journal:  Australas Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 1.430

Review 9.  Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Paulo A Amorim; Nidal Al-Alam; Sven Lehmann; Chirojit Mukherjee; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 5.209

10.  Characteristic resistance curves of aortic valve substitutes facilitate individualized decision for a particular type.

Authors:  Ralf-U Kuehnel; Reinhard Puchner; Alexander Pohl; Max O Wendt; Martin Hartrumpf; Manfred Pohl; Johannes M Albes
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2005-01-13       Impact factor: 4.191

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.