Effect of Fixed Position on Critical Performance of Aortic Valve in Vitro Testing
Journal: Advanced Journal of Nursing DOI: 10.32629/ajn.v5i1.1762
Abstract
Objective — To determine the optimal fixation position by studying the effect of valve and valve fixation position on the key performance during in vitro hydrodynamic testing. Methods — Two self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves were fixed in three different ring positions, tested according to ISO 5840 standard method, and the key performance results were compared and analyzed. Results — When the fixed position of valve and valve ring was aligned with the bottom edge, the mean arterial pressure and regurgitant fraction were the smallest and the effective orifice area was larger. Conclusion — The fixed position of the valve and valve ring has a certain influence on the key performance of the hydrodynamic testing during in vitro testing. The lower fixed position will lead to the smaller effective orifice area. The higher fixed position will lead to the higher regurgitant fraction. Therefore, the optimal fixed position should be determined before the in vitro testing of the aortic valve.
Keywords
aortic valve, in vitro testing, mean pressure difference across the valve, regurgitant fraction, effective orifice area
Funding
Key laboratory (provincial and ministerial level) inspection and testing capacity improvement project (SDNMPAFZLX202307)
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 1 TimesIndexation
Download Index RecordReferences
[1] Popma J J, Deeb G M, Yakubov S J, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 2019, 380(18): 1706-1715.
[2] Bogdanova M, Kostina A, Zihlavnikova Enayati K, et al. Inflammation and mechanical stress stimulate osteogenic differentiation of human aortic valve interstitial cells[J]. Frontiers in physiology, 2018, 9: 1635.
[3] Zhu Peng, Magdalena E, Johannes AZ, et al. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery,Germany Heart Center Munchen, Technology University Munchen[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020, 27(2): 230-232.
[4] Yuan C, Ni L, Zhang C, et al.Vascular calcification: New insights into endothelial cells[J]. Microvasc Res, 2021, 134: 104105.
[5] Park B, Lee Y J.Association of serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level with arterial stiffness and coronary artery calcification in middle-aged and older adults: a cross-sectional study[J]. J Hypertens, 2020, 38(1): 95-101.
[6] Hamandi M, Nwafor I, Hebeler KR, et al. Bioprosthetic valvefracture during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement[J]. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent), 2020, 33(3): 317-321.
[7] Shotaro H, Takaaki N, Satoshi Y, et al. Mitral valve perforation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement[J]. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, 2020, 28(5): 276-278.
[8] Ajmal M, Reddy S, Shetty R, et al.Valve-in-valve-in-valve: degenerated transcatheter heart valve within degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve treated with second transcatheter heart valve[J]. Rep: Med Case, Imag Videos, 2020, 3(2): 7.
[9] Elbadawi A, Ugwu J, Elgendy IY, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement among solid organ transplant recipients[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 97(4): 691-698.
[10] David T. How to decide between a bioprosthetic and mechanical valve[J]. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 2021, 37(7): 1121-1123.
[11] Mayra G, Sreekanth V, Qun X, et al. Thirty-day outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated mitral bioprostheses (Valve-in-Valve), failed surgical rings (Valve-inRing), and native valve with severe mitral annular calcification(Valve-in-Mitral Annular Calcification) in the United States[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(3): e008425.
[12] Deepak A, Jonathan S, Chad K, et al. Valve in valve transcatheteraortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-Surgicalaortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR): a systematic review andmeta-analysis[J]. J Interv Cardiol, 2018, 31(5): 661-671.
[13] Yap CH, Saikrishnan N, Tamilselvan G, et al. Experimental technique of measuring dynamic fluid shear stress on the aortic surface of the aortic valve leaflet[J]. J Biomech Eng, 2011, 133(6): 061007.
[14] YY/T 1449.3-2016,Cardiovascular impacts-cardiac valve prostheses-part3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques[S].
[15] ISO 5840-3, 2013 Cardiovascular implants-Cardiac valve prostheses-Part 3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques[S].
[2] Bogdanova M, Kostina A, Zihlavnikova Enayati K, et al. Inflammation and mechanical stress stimulate osteogenic differentiation of human aortic valve interstitial cells[J]. Frontiers in physiology, 2018, 9: 1635.
[3] Zhu Peng, Magdalena E, Johannes AZ, et al. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery,Germany Heart Center Munchen, Technology University Munchen[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020, 27(2): 230-232.
[4] Yuan C, Ni L, Zhang C, et al.Vascular calcification: New insights into endothelial cells[J]. Microvasc Res, 2021, 134: 104105.
[5] Park B, Lee Y J.Association of serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level with arterial stiffness and coronary artery calcification in middle-aged and older adults: a cross-sectional study[J]. J Hypertens, 2020, 38(1): 95-101.
[6] Hamandi M, Nwafor I, Hebeler KR, et al. Bioprosthetic valvefracture during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement[J]. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent), 2020, 33(3): 317-321.
[7] Shotaro H, Takaaki N, Satoshi Y, et al. Mitral valve perforation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement[J]. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, 2020, 28(5): 276-278.
[8] Ajmal M, Reddy S, Shetty R, et al.Valve-in-valve-in-valve: degenerated transcatheter heart valve within degenerated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve treated with second transcatheter heart valve[J]. Rep: Med Case, Imag Videos, 2020, 3(2): 7.
[9] Elbadawi A, Ugwu J, Elgendy IY, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement among solid organ transplant recipients[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 97(4): 691-698.
[10] David T. How to decide between a bioprosthetic and mechanical valve[J]. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 2021, 37(7): 1121-1123.
[11] Mayra G, Sreekanth V, Qun X, et al. Thirty-day outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement for degenerated mitral bioprostheses (Valve-in-Valve), failed surgical rings (Valve-inRing), and native valve with severe mitral annular calcification(Valve-in-Mitral Annular Calcification) in the United States[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(3): e008425.
[12] Deepak A, Jonathan S, Chad K, et al. Valve in valve transcatheteraortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-Surgicalaortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR): a systematic review andmeta-analysis[J]. J Interv Cardiol, 2018, 31(5): 661-671.
[13] Yap CH, Saikrishnan N, Tamilselvan G, et al. Experimental technique of measuring dynamic fluid shear stress on the aortic surface of the aortic valve leaflet[J]. J Biomech Eng, 2011, 133(6): 061007.
[14] YY/T 1449.3-2016,Cardiovascular impacts-cardiac valve prostheses-part3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques[S].
[15] ISO 5840-3, 2013 Cardiovascular implants-Cardiac valve prostheses-Part 3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques[S].
Copyright © 2024 Jianjun Sun, Wenbo Lu, Qing Zhang, Xinxia Guo, Ning Ma, Lili Liu, Lei Zhang, Jing Yang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License