Key result
In an electrohydraulic total artificial heart, cavitation intensity of bileaflet mechanical valves increased with valve-closing velocity, with squeeze flow being the key mechanism.
In an artificial heart model, bileaflet valve cavitation is driven by squeeze flow and closing velocity, with valve-specific differences in asynchronous closure at lower heart rates.
Minimizing valve-closing velocity may reduce cavitation risk in artificial hearts; leaves open in vivo clinical relevance.
The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of using the bileaflet valves in an electrohydraulic total artificial heart (EHTAH). Three kinds of bileaflet valves, namely the ATS valve (ATS Medical Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), the St. Jude valve (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA), and the Sorin Bicarbon valve (Sorin Biomedica, Vercelli, Italy), were mounted in the mitral position on an inclined 45 degrees plane in an EHTAH. The pressure waves near the valve surface, the valve-closing velocity, and a high-speed camera were employed to investigate the mechanism for bileaflet valve cavitation. The cavitation bubbles in the bileaflet valves were concentrated along the leaflet tip. The cavitation intensity increased with an increase in the valve-closing velocity. It was established that squeeze flow holds the key to bileaflet valve cavitation. At lower heart rates, the delay time of the asynchronous closure motion between the two leaflets of the Sorin Bicarbon valve was greater than that of the other bileaflet valves. At higher heart rates, no significant difference was observed among the bileaflet valves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2007) studied this question. Bileaflet mechanical heart valves (ATS, St. Jude, Sorin Bicarbon) was evaluated on Cavitation and closing velocity. In an electrohydraulic total artificial heart, cavitation intensity of bileaflet mechanical valves increased with valve-closing velocity, with squeeze flow being the key mechanism.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: