Comparative Study of Single Opening&Closing and Continuous Pulsatile Flow Valve Tester.

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1007/s13239-024-00747-w

Hao Wang, Zhiqian Lu, Zhongxi Zhou, Li Liu, Zhaoming He

{"title":"Comparative Study of Single Opening&Closing and Continuous Pulsatile Flow Valve Tester.","authors":"Hao Wang, Zhiqian Lu, Zhongxi Zhou, Li Liu, Zhaoming He","doi":"10.1007/s13239-024-00747-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose is to demonstrate the difference in closing volume fraction between the single opening&closing valve tester (SOCVT) and continuous pulsatile flow valve tester (CPFVT).Methods: A comparative study was conducted in four hemodynamic conditions selected from the ISO 5840 on the four mitral valve states: normal annulus, 40% annulus dilation, 60% annulus dilation, and repaired valve with a clip device in both the SOCVT and CPFVT. The closing volume fractions were compared and errors calculated in the 16 cases.Results: In the CPFVT, the flowrate waveform depends more on hemodynamic conditions rather than the valve morphology. For closing volume fractions in the two testers, twelve cases had errors between 10% and 20% and 3 cases had errors between 2.2% and 5.5%. There was no statistic difference in the closing volume fraction between the CPFVT and SOCVT for the normal annulus, 40% valve annulus dilation, 60% valve annulus dilation and repaired valves (P values = 0.44, 0.44, 0.33, and 0.08, respectively, n = 4).Conclusion: There is certain error in closing volume measurements, even if no statistic difference in closing volume measured by the SOCVT and CPFVT. The typical flow waveforms of the mitral valve may be available to standardize testing of the SOCVT to evaluate valve hemodynamics. The SOCVT may be an alternative to the valve testing.","PeriodicalId":54322,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-024-00747-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose is to demonstrate the difference in closing volume fraction between the single opening&closing valve tester (SOCVT) and continuous pulsatile flow valve tester (CPFVT).

Methods: A comparative study was conducted in four hemodynamic conditions selected from the ISO 5840 on the four mitral valve states: normal annulus, 40% annulus dilation, 60% annulus dilation, and repaired valve with a clip device in both the SOCVT and CPFVT. The closing volume fractions were compared and errors calculated in the 16 cases.

Results: In the CPFVT, the flowrate waveform depends more on hemodynamic conditions rather than the valve morphology. For closing volume fractions in the two testers, twelve cases had errors between 10% and 20% and 3 cases had errors between 2.2% and 5.5%. There was no statistic difference in the closing volume fraction between the CPFVT and SOCVT for the normal annulus, 40% valve annulus dilation, 60% valve annulus dilation and repaired valves (P values = 0.44, 0.44, 0.33, and 0.08, respectively, n = 4).

Conclusion: There is certain error in closing volume measurements, even if no statistic difference in closing volume measured by the SOCVT and CPFVT. The typical flow waveforms of the mitral valve may be available to standardize testing of the SOCVT to evaluate valve hemodynamics. The SOCVT may be an alternative to the valve testing.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

单次开闭和连续脉动流量阀测试仪的比较研究

目的：旨在证明单次开放和关闭瓣膜测试仪（SOCVT）与连续脉动流量瓣膜测试仪（CPFVT）在关闭容积分数上的差异：从 ISO 5840 中选取了四种血流动力学条件，在 SOCVT 和 CPFVT 中对四种二尖瓣状态进行了比较研究：正常瓣环、40% 瓣环扩张、60% 瓣环扩张和使用夹子装置修复的瓣膜。对16个病例的关闭容积分数进行比较并计算误差：结果：在 CPFVT 中，流速波形更多地取决于血流动力学条件而非瓣膜形态。在两种测试仪的关闭容积分数中，12 个病例的误差在 10% 到 20% 之间，3 个病例的误差在 2.2% 到 5.5% 之间。CPFVT和SOCVT对正常瓣环、40%瓣环扩张、60%瓣环扩张和修复瓣膜的关闭容积分数没有统计学差异（P值分别为0.44、0.44、0.33和0.08，n = 4）：结论：即使 SOCVT 和 CPFVT 测量的关闭容积没有统计学差异，但关闭容积的测量仍存在一定误差。二尖瓣的典型血流波形可用于标准化 SOCVT 测试，以评估瓣膜血流动力学。SOCVT 可以作为瓣膜测试的替代方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology Engineering-Biomedical Engineering

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology is a journal publishing the spectrum of basic to translational research in all aspects of cardiovascular physiology and medical treatment. It is the forum for academic and industrial investigators to disseminate research that utilizes engineering principles and methods to advance fundamental knowledge and technological solutions related to the cardiovascular system. Manuscripts spanning from subcellular to systems level topics are invited, including but not limited to implantable medical devices, hemodynamics and tissue biomechanics, functional imaging, surgical devices, electrophysiology, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, diagnostic instruments, transport and delivery of biologics, and sensors. In addition to manuscripts describing the original publication of research, manuscripts reviewing developments in these topics or their state-of-art are also invited.