Porcine and bovine aortic valve comparison for surgical optimization: A fluid-structure interaction modeling study. (1st July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Caili; Tang, Dalin; Yao, Jing; Shao, Yongfeng; Sun, Haoliang; Hammer, Peter; Gong, Chanjuan; Ma, Luyao; Zhang, Yanjuan; Wang, Liang; Yu, Han; Yang, Chun; Baird, Christopher
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 334(2021)
• Page Start: 88
• Page End: 95
• Publication Date: 2021-07-01
• Subjects: Aortic valve replacement -- Fluid-structure interaction -- Porcine aortic valve -- Bovine aortic valve; AV Aortic valve -- AVR Aortic valve replacement -- BAV Bovine aortic valve -- FSI Fluid-structure interaction -- FSS Flow shear stress -- GOA Geometric orifice area -- LV Left ventricular -- LVOT Left ventricular outflow tract -- MMFSS Maximum mean flow shear stress -- MNPG Mean net pressure gradient -- MSCVPG Mean systolic cross-valve pressure gradient -- NPG Net pressure gradient -- PAV Porcine aortic valve -- PNPG Peak net pressure gradient -- PSCVPG Peak systolic cross-valve pressure gradient -- SCVPG Systolic cross-valve pressure gradient -- 3D Three dimensional; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Porcine aortic valve (PAV) and bovine aortic valve (BAV) are commonly used in aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgeries. A detailed comparison for their hemodynamic and structural stress/strain performances would help to better understand valve cardiac function and select valve type and size for AVR outcome optimizations. Methods: Eight fluid-structure interaction models were constructed to compare hemodynamic and stress/strain behaviors of PAV and BAV with 4 sizes (19, 21, 23, and 25 mm). Blood flow velocity, systolic cross-valve pressure gradient (SCVPG), geometric orifice area (GOA), flow shear stresses (FSS), and stress/strain were obtained for comparison. Results: Compared with PAV, BAV has better hemodynamic performance, with lower maximum flow velocity (7.17%) and pressure (9.82%), smaller pressure gradient (mean and peak SCVPG: 8.92% and 9.28%), larger GOA (9.56%) and lower FSS (6.61%). The averages of the mean and peak net pressure gradient values from 4 BAV models were 8.10% and 8.35% lower than that from PAV models. Larger valve sizes for both PAV and BAV had improved hemodynamic performance. Maximum flow velocity, pressure, mean SCVPG and maximum FSS from 25 mm BAV were 36.80%, 15.81%, 39.05% and 38.83% lower than those from 19 mm BAV. The GOA of PAV and BAV 25 mm Valve were 43.75% and 33.07% larger than 19 mm valves, respectively. BAV has lower stress on the leaflets than PAV. Conclusions: BAV had better hemodynamic performance and lower leaflets stress than PAV. More patient studies are needed to validate our findings. Highlights: Compared with PAV, BAV has better hemodynamic performance. Larger valve sizes for both PAV and BAV had improved hemodynamic performance. BAV has lower stress on the leaflets than PAV.