Literature DB >> 8923988

Experimental analysis of fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic valve stenosis: importance of pressure recovery.

R S Heinrich1, A A Fontaine, R Y Grimes, A Sidhaye, S Yang, K E Moore, R A Levine, A P Yoganathan.   

Abstract

Current methods for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis depend primarily on measures of maximum systolic pressure drop at the aortic valve orifice and related calculations such as valve area. It is becoming increasingly obvious, however, that the impact of the obstruction on the left ventricle is equally important in assessing its severity and could potentially be influenced by geometric factors of the valve, causing variable degrees of downstream pressure recovery. The goal of this study was to develop a method for measuring fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic stenosis that could then be directly related to the hemodynamic load placed on the left ventricle. A control volume form of conservation of energy was theoretically analyzed and modified for application to aortic valve stenosis measurements. In vitro physiological pulsatile flow experiments were conducted with different types of aortic stenosis models, including a venturi meter, a nozzle, and 21-mm Medtronic-Hall tilting disc and St. Jude bileaflet mechanical valves. The energy loss created by each model was measured for a wide range of experimental conditions, simulating physiological variation. In all cases, there was more energy lost for the nozzle (mean = 0.27 J) than for any other model for a given stroke volume. The two prosthetic valves generated approximately the same energy losses (mean = 0.18 J), which were not statistically different, whereas the venturi meter had the lowest energy loss for all conditions (mean = 0.037 J). Energy loss correlated poorly with orifice pressure drop (r2 = 0.34) but correlated well with recovered pressure drop (r2 = 0.94). However, when the valves were considered separately, orifice and recovered pressure drop were both strongly correlated with energy loss (r2 = 0.99, 0.96). The results show that recovered pressure drop, not orifice pressure drop, is directly related to the energy loss that determines pump work and therefore is a more accurate measure of the hemodynamic significance of aortic stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8923988     DOI: 10.1007/bf02684181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0090-6964            Impact factor:   3.934


  31 in total

1.  In vitro pulsatile flow hemodynamics of five mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses.

Authors:  P G Walker; A P Yoganathan
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.191

2.  PRINCIPLES OF FLUID MECHANICS APPLIED TO SOME SITUATIONS IN THE HUMAN CIRCULATION AND PARTICULARLY TO THE TESTING OF VALVES IN A PULSE DUPLICATOR.

Authors:  L J TEMPLE; R SERAFIN; N G CALVERT; J M DRABBLE
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1964-05       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  The fluid mechanics of aortic stenosis--I. Theory and steady flow experiments.

Authors:  C Clark
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  The natural history of aortic regurgitation. A clinical and hemodynamic study.

Authors:  N Goldschlager; J Pfeifer; K Cohn; R Popper; A Selzer
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Pulsatile flow studies of prosthetic aortic valves.

Authors:  C Olin
Journal:  Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1971

6.  Assessment of prosthetic valve hemodynamics by Doppler: lessons from in vitro studies of the St. Jude valve.

Authors:  S S Khan
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  1993-03

7.  Percentage of left ventricular stroke work loss. A simple hemodynamic concept for estimation of severity in valvular aortic stenosis.

Authors:  J R Tobin; S H Rahimtoola; P E Blundell; H J Swan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1967-05       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Pressure recovery in aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile flow model.

Authors:  W Voelker; H Reul; T Stelzer; A Schmidt; K R Karsch
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Aortic root and valve relationships. Impact on surgical repair.

Authors:  K S Kunzelman; K J Grande; T E David; R P Cochran; E D Verrier
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 10.  Afterload mismatch in aortic and mitral valve disease: implications for surgical therapy.

Authors:  J Ross
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  5 in total

1.  Derivation of a simplified relation for assessing aortic root pressure drop incorporating wall compliance.

Authors:  Hossein Mohammadi; Raymond Cartier; Rosaire Mongrain
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Hemodynamic energy dissipation in the cardiovascular system: generalized theoretical analysis on disease states.

Authors:  Lakshmi P Dasi; Kerem Pekkan; Diane de Zelicourt; Kartik S Sundareswaran; Resmi Krishnankutty; Pedro J Delnido; Ajit P Yoganathan
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 3.934

3.  Pressure recovery in pediatric aortic valve stenosis.

Authors:  R E Villavicencio; T J Forbes; R L Thomas; R A Humes
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.655

Review 4.  New Evidence About Aortic Valve Stenosis and Cardiovascular Hemodynamics.

Authors:  Costantino Mancusi; Edda Bahlmann; Christian Basile; Eva Gerdts
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2022-04-19

5.  Measuring Pressure Gradients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Rethinking the Bernoulli Principle.

Authors:  Yogesh N V Reddy; William R Miranda; Rick A Nishimura
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 5.501

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.