Vahid Sadri1, Charles H Bloodworth1, Immanuel David Madukauwa-David2, Prem A Midha2, Vrishank Raghav3, Ajit P Yoganathan4. 1. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. 4. Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. ajit.yoganathan@bme.gatech.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement has emerged as an alternative to the contemporary sutured valve technique. A difference in transvalvular pressure has been observed clinically between RD-SAVR and contemporary SAVR. A mechanistic inquiry into the impact of the rapid deployment valve inflow frame design on the left ventricular outflow tract and valve hemodynamics is needed. METHODS: A 23 mm EDWARDS INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve and a control contemporary, sutured valve, a 23 mm Magna Ease valve, were implanted in an explanted human heart by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Per convention, the rapid deployment valve was implanted with three non-pledgeted, simple guiding sutures, while fifteen pledgeted, mattress sutures were used to implant the contemporary surgical valve. In vitro flow models were created from micro-computed tomography scans of the implanted valves and surrounding cardiac anatomy. Particle image velocimetry and hydrodynamic characterization experiments were conducted in the vicinity of the valves in a validated pulsatile flow loop system. RESULTS: The rapid deployment and control valves were found to have mean transvalvular pressure gradients of 7.92 ± 0.37 and 10.13 ± 0.48 mmHg, respectively. The inflow frame of the rapid deployment valve formed a larger, more circular, left ventricular outflow tract compared to the control valve. Furthermore, it was found that the presence of the control valve's sub-annular pledgets compromised its velocity distribution and consequently its pressure gradient. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid deployment valve's intra-annular inflow frame provides for a larger, left ventricular outflow tract, thus reducing the transvalvular pressure gradient and improving overall hemodynamic performance.
OBJECTIVE: Rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement has emerged as an alternative to the contemporary sutured valve technique. A difference in transvalvular pressure has been observed clinically between RD-SAVR and contemporary SAVR. A mechanistic inquiry into the impact of the rapid deployment valve inflow frame design on the left ventricular outflow tract and valve hemodynamics is needed. METHODS: A 23 mm EDWARDS INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve and a control contemporary, sutured valve, a 23 mm Magna Ease valve, were implanted in an explanted human heart by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Per convention, the rapid deployment valve was implanted with three non-pledgeted, simple guiding sutures, while fifteen pledgeted, mattress sutures were used to implant the contemporary surgical valve. In vitro flow models were created from micro-computed tomography scans of the implanted valves and surrounding cardiac anatomy. Particle image velocimetry and hydrodynamic characterization experiments were conducted in the vicinity of the valves in a validated pulsatile flow loop system. RESULTS: The rapid deployment and control valves were found to have mean transvalvular pressure gradients of 7.92 ± 0.37 and 10.13 ± 0.48 mmHg, respectively. The inflow frame of the rapid deployment valve formed a larger, more circular, left ventricular outflow tract compared to the control valve. Furthermore, it was found that the presence of the control valve's sub-annular pledgets compromised its velocity distribution and consequently its pressure gradient. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid deployment valve's intra-annular inflow frame provides for a larger, left ventricular outflow tract, thus reducing the transvalvular pressure gradient and improving overall hemodynamic performance.
Authors: Kevin Phan; Yi-Chin Tsai; Nithya Niranjan; Denis Bouchard; Thierry P Carrel; Otto E Dapunt; Harald C Eichstaedt; Theodor Fischlein; Borut Gersak; Mattia Glauber; Axel Haverich; Martin Misfeld; Peter J Oberwalder; Giuseppe Santarpino; Malakh Lal Shrestha; Marco Solinas; Marco Vola; Tristan D Yan; Marco Di Eusanio Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2015-03
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Victor Dayan; Gustavo Vignolo; Gerardo Soca; Juan Jose Paganini; Daniel Brusich; Philippe Pibarot Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-05-25
Authors: Michael A Borger; Vadim Moustafine; Lenard Conradi; Christoph Knosalla; Markus Richter; Denis R Merk; Torsten Doenst; Robert Hammerschmidt; Hendrik Treede; Pascal Dohmen; Justus T Strauch Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Matthew H Park; Yuanjia Zhu; Annabel M Imbrie-Moore; Hanjay Wang; Mateo Marin-Cuartas; Michael J Paulsen; Y Joseph Woo Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-07-08
Authors: Kevin Lim; Yan Kit Ho; Simon Chi Ying Chow; Takuya Fujikawa; Alex Pui-Wai Lee; Randolph Hung Leung Wong Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-07-15