Hemodynamic performance of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses in critical low stroke volume

Journal of Heart Valve Disease

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 317-324

  Dzemali, Omer ^a   Bakhtiary, Farhad ^a   Steinseiffer, Ulrich ^b   Schmitz, Christof ^b   Glasmacher, Brigit ^b   Moritz, Anton ^a   Kleine, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FRANKFURT   (Germany)

^b Helmholtz Institute Aachen   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; AORTA VALVE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMECHANICS; CALCINOSIS; CARDIOMYOPATHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIASTOLE; HEART STROKE VOLUME; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; IN VITRO STUDY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SWINE; SYSTOLE;

ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOMECHANICS; CALCINOSIS; CARDIOMYOPATHIES; DIASTOLE; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; MODELS, ANIMAL; MODELS, CARDIOVASCULAR; STROKE VOLUME; SWINE; SYSTOLE;

EID: 53449097431     PISSN: 09668519     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Tomos MP, Olona M, Permanyer-Miralda G, et al. Heart failure after aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation: Prospective 20-year study. Am Heart J 1998;136:681-687 (Pubitemid 28483511)
2. Mistiaen WP, Van Cauwelaert P, Muylaert P, Wuyts F, Bortier H. Risk factors for congestive heart failure after aortic valve replacement with a Carpentier-Edwards pericardial prosthesis in the elderly. J Heart Valve Dis 2005;14:774-779
3. Maganti MD, Rao V, Borger MA, Ivanov J, David TE. Predictors of low cardiac output syndrome after isolated aortic valve surgery. Circulation 2005;112(9 Suppl.):I448-I452 (Pubitemid 41266713)
4. Green GR, Miller DC. Continuing dilemmas concerning aortic valve replacement in patients with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Heart Valve Dis 1997;6:562-579 (Pubitemid 27524028)
5. Gabbay S, McQueen DM, Yellin EL, Becker RM, Fraíer RW. In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve prostheses at high flow rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1978;76:771-787 (Pubitemid 9084845)
6. Kuehnel RU, Puchner R, Pohl A, et al. Characteristic resistance curves of aortic valve substitutes facilitate individualized decision for a particular type. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:450-455 (Pubitemid 40312353)
7. Reul H. Cardiovascular simulation models. Life Support Syst 1984;2:77-97
8. Glasmacher B, Deiwick M, Reul H, Knesch H, Keus D, Rau G. A new in vitro test for calcification of bioprosthetic valves. Int J Artif Organs 1997;20:267-271 (Pubitemid 27293434)
9. Glasmacher B, Reul H, Schneppershoff S, Schreck S, Rau G. In vitro calcification of pericardial bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:415-418 (Pubitemid 28351308)
10. Thomson DJ, Jamieson WR, Dumesnil JG, et al. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: Midterm investigational trial results. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71(5 Suppl.):S269-S272 (Pubitemid 32436977)
11. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, III, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:753-757 (Pubitemid 32846222)
12. Emery RW, Krogh CC, Arom KV, et al. The St. Jude Medical cardiac valve prosthesis: A 25-year experience with single valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:776-783
13. Seitelberger R, Bialy J, Gottardi R, et al. Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: Comparison of two aortic valve bioprostheses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:358-363 (Pubitemid 38340570)
14. Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Guenzinger R, et al. The effective orifice area/patient aortic annulus area ratio: A better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13:382-388
15. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, III, Thomas JD, et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1460-1465 (Pubitemid 34596574)
16. Travis BR, Heinrich RS, Ensley AE, Gibson DE, Hashim S, Yoganathan AP. The hemodynamic effects of mechanical prosthetic type and orientation on fluid mechanical energy loss and pressure drop in in-vitro models of ventricular hypertrophy. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:345-354 (Pubitemid 28266858)
17. Heinrich RS. Assessment of the fluid mechanics of aortic valve stenosis with in vitro modeling and control volume analysis. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1997
18. Deiwick M, Glasmacher B, Pettenazzo E, et al. Primary tissue failure of bioprostheses: New evidence from in vitro tests. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;49:78-83 (Pubitemid 32273980)
19. Deiwick M, Glasmacher B, Baba HA, et al. In vitro testing of bioprostheses: influence of mechanical stresses and lipids on calcification. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:206-211