Key result
Edwards Perimount valves exhibited longer opening times (31.2 vs 12.7 ms for 23 mm) and enhanced power transfer (134 vs 64 mW) compared to Medtronic Mosaic valves in a pulse duplicator.
Why the study?
Do Edwards Perimount bovine pericardial valves differ from Medtronic Mosaic porcine valves in opening and closure characteristics in an in vitro pulse duplicator model?
Population
In vitro pulse duplicator model testing Edwards Perimount and Medtronic Mosaic heart valves with diameters…
Comparison
Edwards Perimount heart valves vs Medtronic Mosaic (MM) heart valves (porcine cusps)
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
In vitro differences should not alter valve selection; leaves open durability implications in clinical use.
Do Edwards Perimount bovine pericardial valves differ from Medtronic Mosaic porcine valves in opening and closure characteristics in an in vitro pulse duplicator model?
In an in vitro model, bovine pericardial valves showed lower transvalvular gradients but altered movement performance and higher power transfer compared to porcine valves, which may theoretically impact long-term durability.
Kuehnel et al. (2006) studied this question. Edwards Perimount (EP) heart valves vs. Medtronic Mosaic (MM) heart valves was evaluated on Opening time, closure time, mean transvalvular gradient, and power transfer. Edwards Perimount valves exhibited longer opening times (31.2 vs 12.7 ms for 23 mm) and enhanced power transfer (134 vs 64 mW) compared to Medtronic Mosaic valves in a pulse duplicator.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: