Why the study?
Flow stagnation after TAVR within the neo-sinus may prompt leaflet thrombosis, but the effects of prosthesis implant depth on neo- and native sinus hemodynamics and coronary perfusion were not well understood.
Does TAVR implant depth and cardiac output affect flow stasis and coronary flow in an in vitro model?
Does TAVR implant depth and cardiac output affect flow stasis and coronary flow in an in vitro model?
Higher TAVR implant depth reduces neo-sinus flow stasis in an in vitro model, potentially lowering thrombosis risk.
Lower implant depth may worsen neo-sinus stasis; leaves open optimal positioning to reduce thrombosis risk.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a widely used therapy for aortic valve diseases. With TAVR, flow hemodynamics may change leading to areas of flow stagnation prone to thrombosis risk. The neo-sinus, created by introducing a prosthesis inside the diseased native valve, may prompt leaflet thrombosis due to areas of flow stasis. This study attempted to understand the effect of different prosthesis implant depths on the flow field within the neo- and native sinus and on the coronary perfusion. Experiments were performed inside an in vitro pulse duplicator producing physiological conditions according to ISO 5840-1:2015 standard. Flow fields were obtained for two cardiac outputs (CO) using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Washout was calculated as a measure of flow stasis. The two main results are: a lower implant position and a lower CO/frequency led to better native sinus washout, but worsened neo-sinus washout. In contrast, a higher implant position led to higher coronary flow (for higher CO/frequency). No significant effect of implant depth on coronary flow was observed for lower CO/frequency. In summary, a higher implant position using this self-expanding prosthesis is associated with reduced neo-sinus flow stasis. Hereby, washout of the native sinus, as well as coronary flow, are dependent on cardiac output.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pott et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: