| Literature DB >> 35895002 |
Hiroyuki Saisho1,2, Michael Scharfschwerdt1,2, Tim Schaller1,2, Najla Sadat1,2,3, Anas Aboud1,2, Stephan Ensminger1,2,3, Buntaro Fujita1,2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the hydrodynamic performance and cusp kinematics of the Ozaki neocuspidized aortic valve in comparison with the native aortic and prosthetic valves in an ex vivo study.Entities:
Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; Ex vivo; Hydrodynamic performance; Ozaki procedure; Valve motion
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35895002 PMCID: PMC9443990 DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivac199
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg ISSN: 1569-9285
Figure 1:Study design and methods. (A) Flow chart of the investigated experimental groups. A fresh native porcine aortic root was dissected and connected to a Dacron prosthesis at the left ventricular outflow tract and the coronary arteries were ligated. Surgical aortic valve replacement was performed using 4 substitutes: the Ozaki valve, Perimount Magna Ease (PME) 21 mm, Trifecta (TRI) 21 mm and Masters mechanical heart valve (SJM) 21 mm. (B) Schematic depiction (left) and photographs (right) of the custom built mock circulation loop including the pulse duplicator (modified with permission from Scharfschwerdt et al. [10]). (1) Atrial reservoir, (2) disc valve, (3) cam plate, (4) piston pump, (5) adjustable input compliance, (6) fluid reservoir with an interchangeable aortic valve compartment, (7) visualization chamber, (8) adjustable aortic compliance, (9) non-linear resistance element, (10) height variable fluid column, (11) pressure sensor, (12) ultrasonic flow probe and (13) high-speed camera. (C) Exemplary illustration of GOA tracing.
Hydrodynamic performance of investigated heart valves at various conditions
| Native | Ozaki | PME | TRI | SJM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| EOA (cm2) | |||||
| Condition 1 | 1.33 (1.29–1.90) | 1.41 (1.25–1.73) | 1.28 (1.16–1.51) | 1.19 (1.15–1.24) | 1.27 (1.22–1.29) |
| Condition 2 | 1.58 (1.51–2.11) | 1.60 (1.43–1.94) | 1.42 (1.29–1.51) | 1.37 (1.32–1.41) | 1.44 (1.42–1.44) |
| Condition 3 | 1.70 (1.65–2.28) | 1.70 (1.62–2.06) | 1.49 (1.42–1.55) | 1.49 (1.44–1.54) | 1.59 (1.55–1.58) |
| Condition 4 | 1.88 (1.76–2.32) | 1.86 (1.78–2.14) | 1.54 (1.53–1.58) | 1.62 (1.59–1.68) | 1.64 (1.63–1.68) |
| mPG (mmHg) | |||||
| Condition 1 | 6.47 (4.12–7.48) | 6.36 (5.45–7.41) | 8.03 (7.00–8.79) | 8.26 (7.17–8.85) | 6.91 (6.72–7.78) |
| Condition 2 | 7.49 (4.85–8.20) | 7.21 (5.90–8.16) | 9.65 (8.29–10.40) | 9.61 (8.58–10.30) | 8.39 (7.53–8.91) |
| Condition 3 | 8.26 (5.40–9.27) | 8.16 (6.75–9.33) | 10.83 (10.17–12.36) | 10.37 (9.92–12.13) | 9.12 (8.71–9.59) |
| Condition 4 | 9.07 (7.05–10.55) | 9.45 (7.57–10.36) | 12.41 (11.36–13.88) | 11.83 (11.45–13.28) | 9.96 (9.24–10.26) |
EOA: effective orifice area; mPG: mean pressure gradient; PME: Perimount Magna Ease; SJM: St. Jude Medical Masters HP; TRI: Trifecta.
Figure 2:(A) Effective orifice area of the investigated aortic valves as a function of forward flow. Lines show quadratic regression lines. (B) Mean pressure gradient over the investigated aortic valves as a function of forward flow. Lines show quadratic regression lines.
Figure 3:GOA-flow-time plots of (A) native aortic valve, (B) Ozaki valve, (C) Perimount Magna Ease, (D) Trifecta and (E) St. Jude Medical Masters HP.
Figure 4:Overlay of GOA-flow-time plots of all investigated valves. (A) The maximum GOA was normalized to 100% for all valves. (B) Detailed view of GOA-flow-time plots at the very beginning of valve opening.