4.2 Article

Transcatheter Heart Valve With Variable Geometric Configuration: In Vitro Evaluation

期刊

ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 1151-1159

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01331.x

关键词

Heart valveu; Transapicalu; Percutaneous; Aortic valve calcificationu; In vitro studies

资金

  1. NHLBI [HL082544]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinically, the current transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) technology has shown a propensity for paravalvular leakage; studies have correlated this flaw to increased calcification at the implantation site and with nonideal geometry of the stented valve. The present study evaluated the hydrodynamics of different geometric configurations, in particular the intravalvular considerations. Three TAV devices were made to create a representative, size 26 mm TAV. Hydrodynamics were assessed using a pulse duplicator. The geometries tested were composed of the nominal, elliptical, triangular, and undersized shapes; along with half-constriction, a conformation in which only a portion of the stent was constrained. The TAVs were assessed for transvalvular pressure gradient (TVG), effective orifice area (EOA), and regurgitant fraction. The nominal-sized shape posed a larger TVG (6.2 +/- 0.3 mm Hg) than other configurations (P < 0.001) except the undersized valves. EOA of the nominal sized TAV (1.7 +/- 0.1 cm2) was smaller than that of the triangular and half-elliptical versions (P < 0.001). The half- and full-undersized geometries had EOAs smaller than the nominal type (P < 0.001). Nominal shape had smaller regurgitation (6.7 +/- 1.4%) than all configurations (P < 0.001) except for the half-undersized (4.0 +/- 0.7, P < 0.001) with no statistically significant difference from the full-undersized (6.8 +/- 1.3, P = 0.724). The testing of variable geometries showed significant differences from the nominal geometry with respect to TVG, EOA, and regurgitant fraction. In particular, many of these nonideal configurations demonstrated an increased intravalvular regurgitation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据