Porcine and bovine aortic valve comparison for surgical optimization: A fluid-structure interaction modeling study

被引:5
作者
Li, Caili [1 ]
Tang, Dalin [2 ,3 ,9 ]
Yao, Jing [4 ]
Shao, Yongfeng [5 ]
Sun, Haoliang [5 ]
Hammer, Peter [6 ]
Gong, Chanjuan [7 ]
Ma, Luyao [5 ]
Zhang, Yanjuan [4 ]
Wang, Liang [2 ]
Yu, Han [2 ]
Yang, Chun [8 ]
Baird, Christopher [6 ]
机构
[1] Southeast Univ, Sch Math, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[2] Southeast Univ, Sch Biol Sci & Med Engn, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[3] Worcester Polytech Inst, Dept Math Sci, Worcester, MA 01609 USA
[4] Nanjing Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Cardiol, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[5] Nanjing Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Cardiovasc Surg, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[6] Harvard Med Sch, Boston Childrens Hosp, Dept Cardiac Surg, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[7] Nanjing Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Anesthesiol, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[8] China Informat Tech Designing & Consulting Inst C, Beijing, Peoples R China
[9] Southeast Univ, Nanjing, Peoples R China
关键词
Aortic valve replacement; Fluid-structure interaction; Porcine aortic valve; Bovine aortic valve; HEART-VALVE; HANCOCK II; REPLACEMENT; SIMULATION; ROOT; HEMODYNAMICS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.051
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Porcine aortic valve (PAV) and bovine aortic valve (BAV) are commonly used in aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgeries. A detailed comparison for their hemodynamic and structural stress/strain performances would help to better understand valve cardiac function and select valve type and size for AVR outcome optimizations. Methods: Eight fluid-structure interaction models were constructed to compare hemodynamic and stress/strain behaviors of PAV and BAV with 4 sizes (19, 21, 23, and 25 mm). Blood flow velocity, systolic cross-valve pressure gradient (SCVPG), geometric orifice area (GOA), flow shear stresses (FSS), and stress/strain were obtained for comparison. Results: Compared with PAV, BAV has better hemodynamic performance, with lower maximum flow velocity (7.17%) and pressure (9.82%), smaller pressure gradient (mean and peak SCVPG: 8.92% and 9.28%), larger GOA (9.56%) and lower FSS (6.61%). The averages of the mean and peak net pressure gradient values from 4 BAV models were 8.10% and 8.35% lower than that from PAV models. Larger valve sizes for both PAV and BAV had improved hemodynamic performance. Maximum flow velocity, pressure, mean SCVPG and maximum FSS from 25 mm BAV were 36.80%, 15.81%, 39.05% and 38.83% lower than those from 19 mm BAV. The GOA of PAV and BAV 25 mm Valve were 43.75% and 33.07% larger than 19 mm valves, respectively. BAV has lower stress on the leaflets than PAV. Conclusions: BAV had better hemodynamic performance and lower leaflets stress than PAV. More patient studies are needed to validate our findings. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:88 / 95
页数:8
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in a Swedish nationwide hospital-based register study [J].
Andell, Pontus ;
Li, Xinjun ;
Martinsson, Andreas ;
Andersson, Charlotte ;
Stagmo, Martin ;
Zoller, Bengt ;
Sundquist, Kristina ;
Smith, J. Gustav .
HEART, 2017, 103 (21) :1696-+
[2]   Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement [J].
Andreas, Martin ;
Wallner, Stephanie ;
Ruetzler, Kurt ;
Wiedemann, Dominik ;
Ehrlich, Marek ;
Heinze, Georg ;
Binder, Thomas ;
Moritz, Anton ;
Hiesmayr, Michael J. ;
Kocher, Alfred ;
Laufer, Guenther .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 48 (04) :557-561
[3]   Echo/Doppler Evaluation of Hemodynamics After Aortic Valve Replacement Principles of Interrogation and Evaluation of High Gradients [J].
Bach, David S. .
JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2010, 3 (03) :296-304
[4]  
Bathe KJ., 2006, FINITE ELEMENT PROCE, DOI DOI 10.1115/1.3264375
[5]   Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: A matched hemodynamic comparison [J].
Borger, Michael A. ;
Nette, A. Franka ;
Maganti, Manjula ;
Feindel, Christopher M. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2007, 83 (06) :2054-2059
[6]   Long-Term Clinical and Hemodynamic Performance of the Hancock II Versus the Perimount Aortic Bioprostheses [J].
Chan, Vincent ;
Kulik, Alexander ;
Tran, Anthony ;
Hendry, Paul ;
Masters, Roy ;
Mesana, Thierry G. ;
Ruel, Marc .
CIRCULATION, 2010, 122 (11) :S10-S16
[7]   Long-Term Survival After Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Does Valve Choice Matter? [J].
Ganapathi, Asvin M. ;
Englum, Brian R. ;
Keenan, Jeffrey E. ;
Schechter, Matthew A. ;
Wang, Hanghang ;
Smith, Peter K. ;
Glower, Donald D. ;
Hughes, G. Chad .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 100 (02) :550-559
[8]   Comparative Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis of Polymeric Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valves' Hemodynamics and Structural Mechanics [J].
Ghosh, Ram P. ;
Marom, Gil ;
Rotman, Oren M. ;
Slepian, Marvin J. ;
Prabhakar, Saurabh ;
Horner, Marc ;
Bluestein, Danny .
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2018, 140 (12)
[9]   Image-based immersed boundary model of the aortic root [J].
Hasan, Ali ;
Kolandouz, Ebrahim M. ;
Enquobahrie, Andinet ;
Caranasos, Thomas G. ;
Vavalle, John P. ;
Griffith, Boyce E. .
MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS, 2017, 47 :72-84
[10]   A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38 040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years [J].
Hickey, Graeme L. ;
Grant, Stuart W. ;
Bridgewater, Ben ;
Kendall, Simon ;
Bryan, Alan J. ;
Kuo, James ;
Dunning, Joel .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 47 (06) :1067-1074