Key result
The bovine pericardial valve exhibited lower flutter frequencies (202.8 vs 286.8 Hz) and amplitudes (0.33 vs 0.85 mm) at maximum flow compared to the porcine valve.
Why the study?
Biological prosthetic valves have a relatively short lifetime, and the understudied flutter effect causes cusp oscillations associated with regurgitation, calcification, and fatigue that may further reduce durability.
Does a bovine pericardium prosthetic valve reduce leaflet flutter frequency and amplitude compared to a porcine prosthetic valve in an in vitro cardiac flow model?
Population
A porcine and a bovine pericardium valve in an experimental bench simulating cardiac flow
Comparison
Porcine valve vs bovine pericardium valve
Design
In vitro experimental bench study using high-speed camera and particle image velocimetry
Authors
Loading...
Pericardial valves showed less flutter than porcine in vitro; leaves open whether material selection reduces clinical regurgitation or fatigue.
Does a bovine pericardium prosthetic valve reduce leaflet flutter frequency and amplitude compared to a porcine prosthetic valve in an in vitro cardiac flow model?
In an in vitro model, bovine pericardial valves exhibited lower flutter frequencies and amplitudes, more homogeneous velocity profiles, and lower shear stresses compared to porcine valves, suggesting potentially better resistance to fatigue.
Avelar et al. (2019) studied Prosthetic heart valve flutter (n=2). Bovine pericardium valve vs. Porcine valve was evaluated on Leaflet flutter frequency and amplitude. The bovine pericardial valve exhibited lower flutter frequencies (202.8 vs 286.8 Hz) and amplitudes (0.33 vs 0.85 mm) at maximum flow compared to the porcine valve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: