Key result
Aortic valve prostheses implanted in pigs produced varying systolic Reynolds normal stresses, ranging from 19 Nm-2 to 51 Nm-2, compared to 15 Nm-2 for native valves.
Why the study?
How do velocity fields and turbulent stresses differ downstream of various biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses compared to native valves in a pig model?
Population
22 pigs in an acute in vivo model for velocity field studies downstream of aortic valve prostheses
Comparison
Implantation of mechanical or bioprosthetic… vs Native porcine aortic valve
Design
Preclinical
Follow-up
acute
Authors
Loading...
Prosthetic stresses exceed native levels in pigs; leaves open translation to human hemodynamics or valve durability.
How do velocity fields and turbulent stresses differ downstream of various biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses compared to native valves in a pig model?
Different aortic valve prostheses generate distinct downstream velocity profiles and turbulent stresses in vivo, with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve most closely resembling the native porcine valve.
Hasenkam et al. (1988) studied Aortic valve prostheses (n=22). Biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses vs. Native porcine aortic valve was evaluated on Normalised systolic Reynolds normal stresses. Aortic valve prostheses implanted in pigs produced varying systolic Reynolds normal stresses, ranging from 19 Nm-2 to 51 Nm-2, compared to 15 Nm-2 for native valves.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: