Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 844–857 | Cite as

Emerging Trends in Heart Valve Engineering: Part II. Novel and Standard Technologies for Aortic Valve Replacement

  • Arash Kheradvar
  • Elliott M. Groves
  • Craig J. Goergen
  • S. Hamed Alavi
  • Robert Tranquillo
  • Craig A. Simmons
  • Lakshmi P. Dasi
  • K. Jane Grande-Allen
  • Mohammad R. K. Mofrad
  • Ahmad Falahatpisheh
  • Boyce Griffith
  • Frank Baaijens
  • Stephen H. Little
  • Suncica Canic
Article

Abstract

The engineering of technologies for heart valve replacement (i.e., heart valve engineering) is an exciting and evolving field. Since the first valve replacement, technology has progressed by leaps and bounds. Innovations emerge frequently and supply patients and physicians with new, increasingly efficacious and less invasive treatment options. As much as any other field in medicine the treatment of heart valve disease has experienced a renaissance in the last 10 years. Here we review the currently available technologies and future options in the surgical and transcatheter treatment of aortic valve disease. Different valves from major manufacturers are described in details with their applications.

Keywords

Heart valve engineering Mechanical heart valve Transcatheter aortic valves Bioprosthetic heart valves 

References

  1. 1.
    Alavi, S. H., E. M. Groves, and A. Kheradvar. The effects of transcatheter valve crimping on pericardial leaflets. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 97:1260–1266, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alemu, Y., G. Girdhar, M. Xenos, J. Sheriff, J. Jesty, S. Einav, and D. Bluestein. Design optimization of a mechanical heart valve for reducing valve thrombogenicity-a case study with ats valve. ASAIO J. 56:389–396, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amahzoune, B., P. Bruneval, B. Allam, A. Lafont, J.-N. Fabiani, and R. Zegdi. Traumatic leaflet injury during the use of percutaneous valves: a comparative study of balloon- and self-expandable valved stents. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 43:488–493, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aupart, M. R., A. Mirza, Y. A. Meurisse, A. L. Sirinelli, P. H. Neville, and M. A. Marchand. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15:768–775, 2006; (discussion 775-766).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bach, D. S., T. David, M. Yacoub, J. Pepper, B. Goldman, J. Wood, E. Verrier, M. Petracek, V. Aldrete, and M. Rosenbloom. Hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression following implantation of the toronto SPV stentless porcine valve. Am. J. Cardiol. 82:1214–1219, 1998.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bach, D. S., M. P. Sakwa, M. Goldbach, M. R. Petracek, R. W. Emery, and F. W. Mohr. Hemodynamics and early clinical performance of the st. Jude medical regent mechanical aortic valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 74:2003–2009, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bach, D. S., N. D. Kon, J. G. Dumesnil, C. F. Sintek, and D. B. Doty. Ten-year outcome after aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless bioprosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 80:480–487, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benson, A. M., K. Omrane, E. M. Graves, A. L. Haas, E. Bryant, M. Mandalaywala, and A. Mueller. Synthesis of a low thrombogenic heart valve coating with horseradish peroxidase. Polym. Adv. Technol. 16:117–122, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blais, C., J. G. Dumesnil, R. Baillot, S. Simard, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 108:983–988, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borger, M. A., J. Ivanov, S. Armstrong, D. Christie-Hrybinsky, C. M. Feindel, and T. E. David. Twenty-year results of the hancock ii bioprosthesis. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15:49–56, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borger, M. A., A. F. Nette, M. Maganti, and C. M. Feindel. Carpentier-edwards perimount magna valve versus medtronic hancock ii: a matched hemodynamic comparison. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 83:2054–2058, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bottio, T., L. Caprili, D. Casarotto, and G. Gerosa. Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet mechanical valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 128:457–462, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bradley, S. M. Aortic valve insufficiency in the teenager and young adult: the role of prosthetic valve replacement. World J. Pediatr. Congenit. Heart Surg. 4:397–402, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruschi, G., De Marco, F., Martinelli, L., Klugmann, S. Corevalve® transcatheter self-expandable aortic bioprosthesis. 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carabello, B. A., and W. J. Paulus. Aortic stenosis. Lancet 373:956–966, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrier, M., M. Pellerin, A. Basmadjian, D. Bouchard, L. P. Perrault, R. Cartier, P. Page, P. Demers, and Y. Hébert. Fifteen years of clinical and echocardiographic follow up with the carbomedics heart valve. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15:67, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Celiento, M., L. Filaferro, A. D. Milano, G. Anastasio, G. Ferrari, U. Bortolotti. Single center experience with the sorin bicarbon prosthesis: A 17-year clinical follow-up. J. Thorac. Cardiovas. Surg. 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chambers, J. B., J. L. Pomar, C. A. Mestres, and G. M. Palatianos. Clinical event rates with the on-x bileaflet mechanical heart valve: a multicenter experience with follow-up to 12 years. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 145:420–424, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheema, F. H., N. Hussain, A. P. Kossar, and G. Polvani. Patents and heart valve surgery—i: mechanical valves. Recent Pat. Cardiovasc. Drug Discov. 8:17–34, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Convelbo, C., P. Guetat, M. Cambillau, B. Allam, P. Bruneval, A. Lafont, and R. Zegdi. Crimping and deployment of balloon-expandable valved stents are responsible for the increase in the hydraulic conductance of leaflets. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 44:1045–1050, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cox, J. L., N. Ad, K. Myers, M. Gharib, and R. Quijano. Tubular heart valves: a new tissue prosthesis design—preclinical evaluation of the 3f aortic bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 130:520–527, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cunanan, C. M., C. M. Cabiling, T. T. Dinh, S. Shen, P. Tran-Hata, J. H. Rutledge, III, and M. C. Fishbein. Tissue characterization and calcification potential of commercial bioprosthetic heart valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 71:S417–S421, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dasi, L. P., H. A. Simon, P. Sucosky, and A. P. Yoganathan. Fluid mechanics of artificial heart valves. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 36:225–237, 2009.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Buhr, W., S. Pfeifer, J. Slotta-Huspenina, E. Wintermantel, G. Lutter, and W. A. Goetz. Impairment of pericardial leaflet structure from balloon-expanded valved stents. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 143:1417–1421, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dell’Aquila, A. M., D. Schlarb, S. R. Schneider, J. R. Sindermann, A. Hoffmeier, G. Kaleschke, S. Martens, and A. Rukosujew. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after implantation of the trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: an initial single-centre experience. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 16:112–115, 2013.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai, N. D., O. Merin, G. N. Cohen, J. Herman, S. Mobilos, J. Y. Sever, S. E. Fremes, B. S. Goldman, and G. T. Christakis. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with the st. Jude toronto stentless porcine valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 78:2076–2083, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Emery, R. W., G. J. Van Nooten, and P. J. Tesar. The initial experience with the ATS medical mechanical cardiac valve prosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 75:444–452, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Emery, R. W., C. C. Krogh, D. J. Jones, D. M. Nicoloff, D. P. Blake, and K. V. Arom. A five-year follow up of the ATS mechanical heart valve. J. Heart Valve Dis. 13:231–238, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Falahapisheh, A., and A. Kheradvar. High-speed particle image velocimetry to assess cardiac fluid dynamics in vitro: from performance to validation. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 35:2–8, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fallon, A. M., L. P. Dasi, U. M. Marzec, S. R. Hanson, and A. P. Yoganathan. Procoagulant properties of flow fields in stenotic and expansive orifices. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 36:1–13, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fish R. D., D. Paniagua, Ureña P, Chevalier B. The colibri heart valve: Theory and practice in the achievement of a low-profile, pre-mounted, pre-packaged TAVI valve. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 9:S111, 2013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fisher, J. Comparative study of the hydrodynamic function of six size 19 mm bileaflet heart valves. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 9:692–696, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flameng, W., F. Rega, M. Vercalsteren, P. Herijgers, and B. Meuris. Antimineralization treatment and patient-prosthesis mismatch are major determinants of the onset and incidence of structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 147:1219–1224, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Forleo, M., and L. P. Dasi. Effect of hypertension on the closing dynamics and lagrangian blood damage index measure of the b-datum regurgitant jet in a bileaflet mechanical heart valve. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42:110–122, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gallegos, R. P., A. L. Rivard, P. T. Suwan, S. Black, S. Bertog, U. Steinseifer, A. Armien, M. Lahti, and R. W. Bianco. In-vivo experience with the triflo trileaflet mechanical heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 15:791–799, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldhaber, S. Z. “Bridging” and mechanical heart valves: perils, promises, and predictions. Circulation 113:470–472, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gooley, R., P. Antonis, and I. T. Meredith. The next era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a case illustrating the benefit of a fully re-positionable, re-sheathable, and retrievable prosthesis. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 83:831–835, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Groves, E. M., A. Falahatpisheh, J. L. Su, and A. Kheradvar. The effects of positioning of transcatheter aortic valve on the fluid dynamics of the aortic root. ASAIO J. 60(5):545–552, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grube, E., J.-M. Sinning, and A. Vahanian. The year in cardiology 2013: valvular heart disease (focus on catheter-based interventions). Eur. Heart J. 35:490–495, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haussig, S., G. Schuler, and A. Linke. Worldwide tavi registries: What have we learned? Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2:1–10, 2014.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Holzhey, D., A. Linke, H. Treede, S. Baldus, S. Bleiziffer, A. Wagner, J. Börgermann, W. Scholtz, J.-L. Vanoverschelde, and V. Falk. Intermediate follow-up results from the multicenter engager european pivotal trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 96:2095–2100, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ielasi, A., A. Latib, and M. Tespili. Current and new-generation transcatheter aortic valve devices: an update on emerging technologies. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 11:1393–1405, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jin, X. Y., C. Ratnatunga, and R. Pillai. Performance of edwards prima stentless aortic valve over eight years. Sem. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 13:163–167, 2001.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jun, B. H., N. Saikrishnan, and A. P. Yoganathan. Micro particle image velocimetry measurements of steady diastolic leakage flow in the hinge of a st. Jude medical((r)) regent mechanical heart valve. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42:526–540, 2014.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaufmann, T. A., T. Linde, E. Cuenca-Navalon, C. Schmitz, M. Hormes, T. Schmitz-Rode, and U. Steinseifer. Transient, three-dimensional flow field simulation through a mechanical, trileaflet heart valve prosthesis. ASAIO J. 57:278–282, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kelly, S., P. Verdonck, J. Vierendeels, K. Riemslagh, E. Dick, and G. Van Nooten. A three-dimensional analysis of flow in the pivot regions of an ATS bileaflet valve. Int. J. Artif. Org. 22:754–763, 1999.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kempfert, J., H. Treede, A. J. Rastan, M. Schönburg, M. Thielmann, S. Sorg, F.-W. Mohr, and T. Walther. Transapical aortic valve implantation using a new self-expandable bioprosthesis (acurate ta™): 6-month outcomes. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 43:52–57, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Khawaja, M. Z., R. Rajani, A. Cook, A. Khavandi, A. Moynagh, S. Chowdhary, M. S. Spence, S. Brown, S. Q. Khan, N. Walker, U. Trivedi, N. Hutchinson, A. J. De Belder, N. Moat, D. J. Blackman, R. D. Levy, G. Manoharan, D. Roberts, S. S. Khogali, P. Crean, S. J. Brecker, A. Baumbach, M. Mullen, J.-C. Laborde, and D. Hildick-Smith. Permanent pacemaker insertion after corevalve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and contributing factors (the uk corevalve collaborative). Circulation 123:951–960, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kheradvar, A., H. Houle, G. Pedrizzetti, G. Tonti, T. Belcik, and M. Ashraf. Lindner, J.R., Gharib, M., Sahn, D. Echocardiographic particle image velocimetry: a novel technique for quantification of left ventricular blood vorticity pattern. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 23:3102–3111, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kiefer, P., F. Gruenwald, J. Kempfert, H. Aupperle, J. Seeburger, F. W. Mohr, and T. Walther. Crimping may affect the durability of transcatheter valves: an experimental analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 92:155–160, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    King, M., T. David, and J. Fisher. An initial parametric study on fluid flow through bileaflet mechanical heart valves using computational fluid dynamics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H 208:63–72, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kodali, S. K., M. R. Williams, C. R. Smith, L. G. Svensson, J. G. Webb, R. R. Makkar, G. P. Fontana, T. M. Dewey, V. H. Thourani, and A. D. Pichard. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. New Engl. J. Med. 366:1686–1695, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leon, M. B., C. R. Smith, M. Mack, D. C. Miller, J. W. Moses, L. G. Svensson, E. M. Tuzcu, J. G. Webb, G. P. Fontana, and R. R. Makkar. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. New Engl. J. Med. 363:1597–1607, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Levy, F., E. Donal, L. Bière, C. Szymanski, J. P. Remadi, E. Flécher, O. Fouquet, A. Leguerrier, and C. Tribouilloy. Hemodynamic performance during exercise of the new st. Jude trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: results from a french multicenter study. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 27:590–597, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marchand, M. A., M. R. Aupart, R. Norton, I. R. Goldsmith, L. C. Pelletier, M. Pellerin, T. Dubiel, W. J. Daenen, P. Herijgers, and F. P. Casselman. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral carpentier-edwards perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 71:S236–S239, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Matthews, A. M. The development of the starr-edwards heart valve. Texas Heart Inst. J. 25:282–293, 1998.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Miraldi, F., L. Spagnesi, D. Tallarico, G. Di Matteo, and G. Brancaccio. Sorin stentless pericardial valve versus carpentier–edwards perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: is it worthwhile to struggle? Int. J. Cardiol. 118:253–255, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mohammadi, S., D. Kalavrouziotis, P. Voisine, E. Dumont, D. Doyle, J. Perron, and F. Dagenais. Bioprosthetic valve durability after stentless aortic valve replacement: the effect of implantation technique. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 97:2011–2018, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Naidoo, R., B. Pearse, P. Tesar, S. Yap, A. Barnett, and T. Fayers. Long-term outcomes following medtronic open pivot valved conduit. J Heart Valve Dis. 23:105–111, 2014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nishimura, R. A., C. M. Otto, R. O. Bonow, B. A. Carabello, J. P. Erwin, R. A. Guyton, P. T. O’Gara, C. E. Ruiz, N. J. Skubas, and P. Sorajja. AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on practice guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 63:e57–e185, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Northrup, 3rd, W. F., R. W. Emery, D. M. Nicoloff, T. J. Lillehei, A. R. Holter, and D. P. Blake. Opposite trends in coronary artery and valve surgery in a large multisurgeon practice, 1979–1999. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 77:488–495, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Offstad, J., K. Andersen, P. Paulsson, J. Andreasson, U. Kjellman, O. Lundblad, K. G. Engstrøm, R. Haaverstad, and J. L. Svennevig. The scandinavian multicenter hemodynamic evaluation of the SJM regent aortic valve. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 6:163, 2011.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Piazza, N., and J. Gregoire. Images in clinical medicines. Starr-edwards heart valves. New Engl. J. Med. 358:e24, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pibarot, P., and J. G. Dumesnil. Prosthetic heart valves selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 119:1034–1048, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pillai, R., C. Ratnatunga, J. L. Soon, H. Kattach, A. Khalil, and X. Y. Jin. 3f prosthesis aortic cusp replacement: implantation technique and early results. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 18:13–16, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Prifti, E., M. Bonacchi, A. Baboci, K. Krakulli, and G. Giunti. Early and mid-term functional and hemodynamic evaluation of the st. Jude medical regent 17 mm aortic valve mechanical prosthesis. J. Heart Valve Dis. 23:112–121, 2014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Puskas, J., M. Gerdisch, D. Nichols, R. Quinn, C. Anderson, B. Rhenman, L. Fermin, M. McGrath, B. Kong, and C. Hughes. Reduced anticoagulation after mechanical aortic valve replacement: interim results from the prospective randomized on-x valve anticoagulation clinical trial randomized food and drug administration investigational device exemption trial. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 147(1202–1211):e1202, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rahimtoola, S. H. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55:2413–2426, 2010.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reyes, G., S. Badia, P. Alvarez, C. Kallmeyer, S. Rodriguez, A. Sarraj, and J. Bustamante. Results of aortic valve replacement with the supra-annular sorin bicarbon overline prosthesis. J. Heart Valve Dis. 21:358–363, 2012.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Riess, F.-C., R. Bader, E. Cramer, L. Hansen, B. Kleijnen, G. Wahl, J. Wallrath, S. Winkel, and N. Bleese. Hemodynamic performance of the medtronic mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to ten years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 83:1310–1318, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Riess, F.-C., E. Cramer, L. Hansen, S. Schiffelers, G. Wahl, J. Wallrath, S. Winkel, and P. Kremer. Clinical results of the medtronic mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 37:145–153, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ross, Jr., J., and E. Braunwald. Aortic stenosis. Circulation 38:61–67, 1968.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rudolph, T. K., and S. Baldus, Jenavalve-transfemoral technology. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 9:S101, 2013.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sato, M., H. Harasaki, K. E. Wika, M. V. Soloviev, and A. S. Lee. Blood compatibility of a newly developed trileaflet mechanical heart valve. ASAIO J. 49:117–122, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schoen, F. J., and R. J. Levy. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 79:1072–1080, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schofer, J., A. Colombo, S. Klugmann, J. Fajadet, F. DeMarco, D. Tchétché, F. Maisano, G. Bruschi, A. Latib, and K. Bijuklic. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the direct flow medical® transcatheter aortic valve. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 63:763–768, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schwarz, F., P. Baumann, J. Manthey, M. Hoffmann, G. Schuler, H. C. Mehmel, W. Schmitz, and W. Kubler. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 66:1105–1110, 1982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shipkowitz, T., J. Ambrus, J. Kurk, and K. Wickramasinghe. Evaluation technique for bileaflet mechanical valves. J. Heart Valve Dis. 11:275–282, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Smith, C. R., M. B. Leon, M. J. Mack, D. C. Miller, J. W. Moses, L. G. Svensson, E. M. Tuzcu, J. G. Webb, G. P. Fontana, and R. R. Makkar. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. New Engl. J. Med. 364:2187–2198, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Valfrè, C., P. Ius, G. Minniti, L. Salvador, T. Bottio, F. Cesari, G. Rizzoli, and G. Gerosa. The fate of hancock ii porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 38:141–146, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Van Nooten, G. J., F. Caes, K. Francois, Y. Van Belleghem, T. Bové, G. Vandenplas, M. De Pauw, and Y. Taeymans. Fifteen years’ single-center experience with the ATS bileaflet valve. J. Heart Valve Dis. 18:445–452, 2009.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Van Nooten, G. J., T. Bové, Y. Van Belleghem, K. François, F. Caes, G. Vandenplas, M. De Pauw, and Y. Taeymans. Twenty-year single-center experience with the medtronic open pivot mechanical heart valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 97:1306–1313, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Vavuranakis, M., D. Vrachatis, and C. Stefanadis. Corevalve aortic bioprosthesisrepositioning techniques. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3:565–565, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wang, J., H. Yao, C. Lim, Y. Zhao, T. Yeo, and N. Hwang. Computational fluid dynamics study of a protruded-hinge bileaflet mechanical heart valve. J. Heart Valve Dis. 10:254–262, 2001; (discussion 263).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Webb, J., and A. Cribier. Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve implantation: what do we know? Eur. Heart J. 32:140–147, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wendt, D., M. Thielmann, T. Buck, R.-A. Jánosi, T. Bossert, N. Pizanis, M. Kamler, and H. Jakob. First clinical experience and 1-year follow-up with the sutureless 3f-enable aortic valve prosthesis. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 33:542–547, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Willson, A. B., J. Rodès-Cabau, D. A. Wood, J. Leipsic, A. Cheung, S. Toggweiler, R. K. Binder, M. Freeman, R. DeLarochellière, and R. Moss. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the st. Jude medical portico valvefirst-in-human experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60:581–586, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wu, J., B. M. Yun, A. M. Fallon, S. R. Hanson, C. K. Aidun, and A. P. Yoganathan. Numerical investigation of the effects of channel geometry on platelet activation and blood damage. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:897–910, 2011.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Xenos, M., G. Girdhar, Y. Alemu, J. Jesty, M. Slepian, S. Einav, and D. Bluestein. Device thrombogenicity emulator (DTE)—design optimization methodology for cardiovascular devices: a study in two bileaflet mhv designs. J. Biomech. 43:2400–2409, 2010.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Yankah, C. A., M. Pasic, M. Musci, J. Stein, C. Detschades, H. Siniawski, and R. Hetzer. Aortic valve replacement with the mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 136:688–696, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Yin, W., E. C. Ngwe, and D. A. Rubenstein. A biocompatible flow chamber to study the hemodynamic performance of prosthetic heart valves. ASAIO J. 58:470–480, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Yun, B. M., J. Wu, H. A. Simon, S. Arjunon, F. Sotiropoulos, C. K. Aidun, and A. P. Yoganathan. A numerical investigation of blood damage in the hinge area of aortic bileaflet mechanical heart valves during the leakage phase. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40:1468–1485, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zegdi, R., P. Bruneval, D. Blanchard, and J.-N. Fabiani. Evidence of leaflet injury during percutaneous aortic valve deployment. Eur. J. Cardio Thorac. Surg. 40:257–260, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Zingg, U., B. Aeschbacher, C. Seiler, U. Althaus, and T. Carrel. Early experience with the new masters series of st. Jude medical heart valve: in vivo hemodynamic and clinical results in patients with narrowed aortic annulus. J. Heart Valve Dis. 6:535–541, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arash Kheradvar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elliott M. Groves
    • 1
    • 2
  • Craig J. Goergen
    • 3
  • S. Hamed Alavi
    • 1
  • Robert Tranquillo
    • 4
  • Craig A. Simmons
    • 5
    • 6
  • Lakshmi P. Dasi
    • 7
  • K. Jane Grande-Allen
    • 8
  • Mohammad R. K. Mofrad
    • 9
  • Ahmad Falahatpisheh
    • 1
  • Boyce Griffith
    • 10
    • 11
  • Frank Baaijens
    • 12
  • Stephen H. Little
    • 13
  • Suncica Canic
    • 14
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Edwards Lifesciences Center for Advanced Cardiovascular TechnologyUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of CardiologyUniversity of California, Irvine School of MedicineIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical & Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Institute of Biomaterials & Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  8. 8.Department of BioengineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  9. 9.Department of Bioengineering and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  10. 10.Department of MathematicsCenter for Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  11. 11.McAllister Heart Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  12. 12.Department of Biomedical EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  13. 13.Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular CenterHoustonUSA
  14. 14.Department of MathematicsUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations