This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Yoganathan, A. P. Articles by Jones, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Yoganathan, A. P. Articles by Jones, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Advances in Prosthetic Heart Valves: Fluid Mechanics of Aortic Valve Designs

Cardiovascular Fluid Dynamics Laboratory School of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0100

Yi-Ren Woo, PH.D.

Cardiovascular Fluid Dynamics Laboratory School of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0100

Hsing-Wen Sung, B.S.

Cardiovascular Fluid Dynamics Laboratory School of Chemical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0100

Michael Jones, M.D.

Surgery Branch National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892

The in vitro hemodynamic characteristics of a variety of mechanical and tissue heart valve designs used during the past two decades were investigated in the aortic position under pulsatile flow conditions. The following valve designs were studied: Starr-Edwards ball and cage (model 1260), Björk-Shiley tilting disc (convexo-concave model), Medtronic-Hall tilting disc, St. Jude Medical bileaflet, Carpentier-Edwards porcine and pericardial (models 2625, 2650 and 2900), Hancock porcine (models 250 and 410) and Ionescu-Shiley standard pericardial. The Starr-Edward ball and cage, Björk-Shiley tilting disc, Carpentier-Edwards porcine (model 2625) and Ionescu-Shiley standard pericardial valves were designed prior to 1975, while the Medtronic-Hall tilting disc, St. Jude Medical bileaflet, Hancock porcine (model 250), Hancock II porcine (model 410), Carpentier-Edwards porcine (model 2650) and Carpentier-Edwards pericardial (model 2900) valves were designed after 1975. The pressure drop results indicated that the valves designed prior to 1975 had performance indices of 0.30 to 0.45, whereas the valves designed after 1975 had performance indices of 0.40 to 0.70. The regurgitant volumes were higher for the mechanical designs (5.0 to 11.0 cm³/beat) compared to the tissue bioprostheses (1.0 to 5.0 cm³/ beat). Two-dimensional laser Doppler anemometry studies indicated that the valves designed after 1975 tended to create more centralized flow fields, with reduced levels of turbulent shear stresses. However, none of the current valve designs is ideal: they all create areas of stasis and/or regions of low velocity reverse flow; and regions of elevated turbulent shear stresses that are capable of causing sub-lethal and/or lethal damage to the formed elements of blood.

Journal of Biomaterials Applications, Vol. 2, No. 4, 579-614 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/088532828700200405


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?