Advertisement

Bioengineering of Mechanical and Biologic Heart Valve Substitutes

  • Shlomo Gabbay
  • J. Yasha Kresh

Abstract

Prosthetic heart valve replacement is currently performed with acceptable low mortality. However, complications and morbidity related to the use of different valve substitutes, both biologic and mechanical, remain a substantial problem (1).

Keywords

Pulsatile Flow Effective Orifice Area Biologic Prosthesis Biologic Valve Porcine Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Roberts WC: Choosing a substitute cardiac valve. Type size, surgeon. Am J Cardiol 38:633, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Figliola RS, Mueller TJ: Fluid stresses in the vicinity of disk, ball and tilting disk prosthetic heart valves from in vitro measurements. J Biomechan Eng 99:173, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durst F, Melling A, Whitelaw JH: Principles and Practice of Laser Doppler Anemometry. Academic Press, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoganathan AP, Corcoran WH, Harrison EC: In vitro velocity measurements in the vicinity of aortic prostheses. J Biomechan 12:135, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoganathan AP, Woo Y, Williams FP, Stevenson DM, Franch RH, Harrison EC: In vitro fluid dynamic characteristics of Ionescu-Shiley and Carpentier-Edwards tissue bioprostheses. Artif Organs 7:459, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandran KB, Ferguson TV, Chen C, Khalighi B: Experimental study of flow dynamics behind valve prostheses. American Society of Artificial Internal Organs (ASAIO) Journal 6:146, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandran KB, Cabell GN, Khalighi B, Chen CJ: Laser anemometry measurements of pulsatile flow past aortic valve prostheses. J Biomechan 16: 865, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoganathan AP, Corcoran WH, Harrison EC, Carl JR:In vitro velocity measurements in the near vicinity of the Bjork-Shiley aortic prosthesis using a laser-Doppler anemometer. Med Biol Eng Comput 17:453, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engelman MS, Moskowitz SE, Borman JB: Computer simulation: a diagnostic method in comparative studies of valve prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 79:402, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Steenhoven AA, Verlaan CWJ, Veenstra PC, Reneman RS: In vivo cinematographic analysis of behaviour of the aortic valve. Am Physiol Soc p. H286, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Steenhoven AA, Van Duppen JAG, Cauwenberg JWG: In vitro closing behaviour of Bjork-Shiley, St. Jude and Hancock heart valve prostheses in relation to the in vivo recorded aortic valve closure. J Biomechan 15:841, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiting EW: Characteristics of Heart Valves. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoganathan AP, Corcoran WH, Harrison EC: Pressure drops across prosthetic aortic heart valves under steady and pulsatile flow in vitro measurements. J Biomechan 12:153, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorlin R, Gorlin SG: Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts. Am Heart J 41:1, 1951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gabbay S, McQueen DM, Yellin EL, Becker RM, Frater RWM: In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve prostheses at high flow rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 76:771, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabbay S, McQueen DM, Yellin EL, Frater RWM: In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of mitral valve bioprostheses. Circulation 60 (suppl I) 162, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gabbay S, Strom J, Yellin EL, Frater RWM: Comparison of rigid and flexible pulse duplicatory chamber for testing of heart valves (abstract). AAMI 16th Annual Meeting, May 10–13, 1981, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabbay S, Yellin EL, Frishman WH, Frater RWM: In vitro hydrodynamic comparison of St. Jude, Bjork-Shiley and Hall-Kaster valves. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 26:231, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gabbay S, Frater RWM: In vitro comparison of the new generation of mitral bioprosthetic valves. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 28:143, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabbay S, Frater RWM: In vitro comparison of the newer heart valve bioprostheses. In: Cohn LH, Gallucci V (eds.) Cardiac Bioprostheses. Yorke Medical Books, New York, 1982, p. 456.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spray TL, Roberts WC: Structural changes in porcine xenografts used as substitute cardiac valves. Gross and histologic observations in 51 glutaraldehyde-preserved Hancock valves in 41 patients. Am J Cardiol 40:319, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hannah H, Reis RL: Current status of porcine heterograft prostheses; 5-year appraisal. Circulation 54 (suppl III): 27, 1976.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karp RB, Cyrus RJ, Blackstone EH, Kirklin JW, Kouchoukos NT, Pacifico AD: The Bjork- Shiley valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 81:602, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Craig-Miller D, Oyer PE, Stinson EB, Reitz BA, Jamieson SW, Baumgartner WA, Mitchell RS, Shumway NE: Ten to fifteen year reassessment of the performance characteristics of the Starr- Edwards model 6120 mitral valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 85:1, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wright JTM: Flow dynamics in prosthetic valves. An assessment of hydrodynamic performance. In: Kalmanson D (ed.) The Mitral Valve. Publishing Sciences Group, Acton, Mass., 1976, p. 271.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nolan SP: Flow characteristics of mitral valvular prostheses: ball, disc and xenograft. In: Kalmanson D (ed.) The Mitral Valve. Publishing Sciences Group, Acton, Mass., 1976, p. 291.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gabbay S, Factor SM, Strom J, Becker R, Frater RWM: Sudden death due to cuspal dehiscence of the Ionescu-Shiley valve in the mitral position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 84: 313, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gabbay S, Bortolotti U, Strom J, Frater RWM, Wasserman F: Fatigue-induced failure of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft in the mitral position. In vivo and in vitro correlation and a proposed classification. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 87:836–844, 1984.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gabbay S, Bortolotti U, Wasserman F: Prediction of bioprosthetic valve durability by accelerated fatigue test. American Association of Medical Instrumentation Proceedings, 1984 (short article).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gabbay S, Bortolotti U, Wasserman F, Frater RWM: Hemodynamics and durability of mitral bioprostheses-an in vitro study. Eur J Cardiol. 5 (Suppl.):65 – 71, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rahimtoola SH, Cohn LH: A cardiologist’s point of view and a cardiac surgeon’s point of view. In: Cohn LH, Gallucci V (eds.) Cardiac Bioprostheses. Yorke Medical Books, New York, 1982, p. 571.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shlomo Gabbay
  • J. Yasha Kresh

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations