Differences in Pressure Recovery Between Balloon Expandable and Self-expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves
- 31 January 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Annals of Biomedical Engineering
- Vol. 48 (2), 860-867
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-019-02425-8
Abstract
Pressure recovery downstream of the aortic valve constitutes an important factor affecting the calculation of pressure gradient (PG) across the valve and therefore the accuracy of the calculated aortic valve area. Some clinical studies hypothesized that stent and valve cusps design contribute to flow acceleration and Doppler-measured valve gradients across the balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. This study aims at elucidating the physical mechanisms behind pressure recovery variations between Edwards SAPIEN 3 and Medtronic Evolut TAVs through the measurements of sensitive and precise axial pressure profiles. A 23 mm Edwards SAPIEN3 and a 26 mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed in a pulse duplicator. A Millar catheter was used to record 50 cycles of pressure data along the centerline of the valve chamber upstream and downstream of the valve. The peak PG obtained with SAPIEN at vena contracta (VC) is 18.83 +/- 0.75 mmHg and after recovery, 9.56 +/- 0.78 mmHg. For Evolut at VC, peak PG is 18.25 +/- 0.63 mmHg and after recovery, 10.3 +/- 0.57 mmHg. The differences in peak PG at VC and at the recovery were statistically significant (p < 0.001). With SAPIEN 3 at VC, the mean PG obtained is 10.11 +/- 0.63 mmHg and after recovery 7.06 +/- 0.46 mmHg. For Evolut, mean PG at VC is 10.45 +/- 0.67 mmHg and after recovery 7.99 +/- 0.61 mmHg. The differences between the mean PG between the two valves was not statistically significant at VC (p = 0.71) but significant post-recovery (p < 0.00001). While gradients at the VC are higher with the SAPIEN 3, the net gradient after pressure recovery is significantly lower compared to Evolut TAV. Efficiency of pressure recovery significantly depends on valve type due to stent interference with the recovering blood flow.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institutes of Health (R01HL119824)
- American Heart Association (19POST34380804)
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging†European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging, 2016
- Prognostic Value of Energy Loss Index in Asymptomatic Aortic StenosisCirculation, 2013
- Impact of Pressure Recovery on Echocardiographic Assessment of Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A SEAS SubstudyJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2010
- Echo/Doppler Evaluation of Hemodynamics After Aortic Valve Replacement: Principles of Interrogation and Evaluation of High GradientsJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 2010
- Valvular Aortic Stenosis: Disease Severity and Timing of InterventionJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2006
- Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon: practical implications with regard to quantification of aortic stenosis severityJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2003
- Is pressure recovery an important cause of "Doppler aortic stenosis" with no gradient at cardiac catheterisation?Heart, 1996
- Two-dimensional color-mapping of turbulent shear stress distribution downstream of two aortic bioprosthetic valves in vitroJournal of Biomechanics, 1992
- Velocity and turbulence measurements past mitrial valve prostheses in a model left ventricleJournal of Biomechanics, 1991
- Estimation of Shear Stress-related Blood Damage in Heart Valve Prostheses - in Vitro Comparison of 25 Aortic ValvesThe International Journal of Artificial Organs, 1990