Silicone rubber trileaflet valve assessment using cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC'10

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 5169-5172

  García, Julio ^a,b   Kadem, Lyes ^a   Pibarot, Philippe ^b  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

^b LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BERNOULLI'S EQUATIONS; CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCES; CONTINUITY EQUATIONS; CONTRACTION COEFFICIENTS; EFFECTIVE ORIFICE AREAS; FLOW CONDITION; HYDRODYNAMIC PARAMETERS; NON-INVASIVE; ORIFICE AREA; SILICONE RUBBER; TRANSVALVULAR PRESSURE GRADIENTS; VALVE OPENING;

ELASTOMERS; FLUID DYNAMICS; HYDRODYNAMICS; ORIFICES; PULSATILE FLOW; RATING; RESONANCE; REYNOLDS NUMBER; RUBBER; SILICONES; STEADY FLOW;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

SILASTIC;

ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; BLOOD PRESSURE; CHEMISTRY; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSIOLOGY; PULSATILE FLOW;

BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; BLOOD PRESSURE; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PULSATILE FLOW; SILICONE ELASTOMERS;

EID: 78650804985     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626141     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Rosamond R, Flegal K, Friday G et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics 2007 update. Circulation 2007;115:e69-e171.
2. Rose E, Moskowitz A, Packer M, et al. The REMATCH Trial: Rationale, Design, and End Points. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 67:723-30.
3. Mason VF, Konicki AJ. Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. AACN Clin Issues 2003;14:488-497.
4. Sacristán E, Corona F, Suárez B et al. Development of a Universal Second Generation Pneumatic Ventricular Assist Device and Drive Unit. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2003; 427-430.
5. Escobedo C, Tovar F, Vilá A, et al. Hydrodynamic Effects of the Partial Opening of a Trileaflet Valve. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006; 2896-2899.
6. García J, Sacristán E. Trileaflet Valve Hydrodynamic Resistance Assessment. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008; 2008:1393-1396.
7. Cawley PJ, Maki JH, Otto CM. Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Valvular Heart Disease: Technique and Validation. Circulation 2009; 119:468-478.
8. Caruthers SD, Lin SJ, Brown P et al. Practical value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for clinical quantification of aortic valve stenosis: comparison with echocardiography. Circulation 2003;108:2236-2243.
9. Yap SC, van Geuns RJ, Meijboom FJ et al. A simplified continuity equation approach to the quantification of stenotic bicuspid aortic valves using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2007; 9:899-906.
10. Waters EA, Caruthers SD, Wickline SA. Correlation Analysis of Stenotic Aortic Valve Flow Patterns Using Phase Contrast MRI. Annals of Biomed Eng 2005; 33:878-887.
11. Bruder O, Jochims M, Hunold P, Jensen C et al. Comparison of Aortic Valve Area Measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dual-Source Computed Tomography. Acta Radiologica 2009; 50(6):645-651.
12. Sturm C, Li W, Hwang N. Fluid Mechanics of leaf Ventricular Assist System Outflow Housing. ASAIO J 1992; 38 (3):M225-7.
13. García J, Kadem L, Larose E et al. In vivo Velocity and Flow Errors Quantification by Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008; 2008:1377-1380.
14. Li C, Xu C, Fox MD. Level Set Evolution Without Re-initialization: A New Variational Formulation. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR 05. 2005;1:430-436.
15. Lotz J, Meier C, Leppert A, Galanski. Cardiovascular Flow Measurement with Phase-Contrast MR Imaging: Basic Facts and Implementation. RadioGraphics 2002; 22:651-671.