4.5 Article

Comparison of platelet activation through hinge vs bulk flow in bileaflet mechanical heart valves

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 83, Issue -, Pages 280-290

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.12.003

Keywords

Platelet activation; Mechanical heart valve; Hinge flow; Gap size; Overset grid; Eulerian framework

Funding

  1. American Heart Association [13SDG17220022]
  2. Center of Computational Research (CCR) of University at Buffalo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bileaflet mechanical heart valves (BMHVs) are prone to thromboembolic complications which are believed to be initiated by platelet activation. Platelets are activated by non-physiologic shear stresses in the bulk flow or the leakage/hinge flow, whose contributions has yet to be quantified. Here, the contribution of bulk and hinge flows to the activation of platelets in BMHVs is quantified for the first time by performing simulations of the flow through a BMHV and resolving the hinge by overset grids (one grid for the bulk flow and two for the hinge regions coupled together using one-way and two-way interpolation). It was found that two-way coupling is essential to obtain correct hinge flow features. The platelet activation through the hinge for two gap sizes (250 and 150 mu m) is compared to the activation in the bulk flow using two platelet activation models to ensure the consistency of the observed trends. The larger gap has a higher total activation, but a better washout ability due to higher velocities. The maximum shear stress observed in the bulk flow (similar to 320 dyne/cm(2)) is much smaller than the hinge (similar to 1000 dyne/cm(2)). However, the total activation by the bulk flow is found to be several folds higher than by the hinge/leakage flow. This is mainly due to the higher flow rate of the bulk flow which exposes much more platelets to shear stress than the leakage flow. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available