Why the study?
Computer modeling and simulation promises to accelerate medical device design and regulation, motivating the development and experimental validation of dynamic fluid-structure interaction models for evaluating bioprosthetic heart valves.
Dynamic computer models of bioprosthetic heart valves using fluid-structure interaction show excellent agreement with experimental pulse duplicator data, supporting their potential for device design and regulation.
Validates FSI models for bioprosthetic valves in animal settings; leaves open translation to clinical device design and regulation.
Computer modeling and simulation (CM&S) is a powerful tool for assessing the performance of medical devices such as bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) that promises to accelerate device design and regulation. This study describes work to develop dynamic computer models of BHVs in the aortic test section of an experimental pulse duplicator platform that is used in academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to assess BHV performance. These computational models are based on a hyperelastic finite element extension of the immersed boundary method for fluid--structure interaction (FSI). We focus on porcine tissue and bovine pericardial BHVs, which are commonly used in surgical valve replacement. We compare our numerical simulations to experimental data from two similar pulse duplicators, including a commercial ViVitro system and a custom platform related to the ViVitro pulse duplicator. Excellent agreement is demonstrated between the computational and experimental results for bulk flow rates, pressures, valve open areas, and the timing of valve opening and closure in conditions commonly used to assess BHV performance. In addition, reasonable agreement is demonstrated for quantitative measures of leaflet kinematics under these same conditions. This work represents a step towards the experimental validation of this FSI modeling platform for evaluating BHVs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: