EXPERIMENTAL-ANALYSIS OF FLUID MECHANICAL ENERGY-LOSSES IN AORTIC-VALVE STENOSIS - IMPORTANCE OF PRESSURE RECOVERY

Citation
Rs. Heinrich et al., EXPERIMENTAL-ANALYSIS OF FLUID MECHANICAL ENERGY-LOSSES IN AORTIC-VALVE STENOSIS - IMPORTANCE OF PRESSURE RECOVERY, Annals of biomedical engineering, 24(6), 1996, pp. 685-694
Citations number
40
Categorie Soggetti
Engineering, Biomedical
ISSN journal
00906964
Volume
24
Issue
6
Year of publication
1996
Pages
685 - 694
Database
ISI
SICI code
0090-6964(1996)24:6<685:EOFMEI>2.0.ZU;2-#
Abstract
Current methods for assessing the severity of aortic stenosis depend p rimarily on measures of maximum systolic pressure drop at the aortic v alve orifice and related calculations such as valve area. It is becomi ng increasingly obvious, however, that the impact of the obstruction o n the left ventricle is equally important in assessing its severity an d could potentially be influenced by geometric factors of the valve, c ausing variable degrees of downstream pressure recovery. The goal of t his study was to develop a method for measuring fluid mechanical energ y losses in aortic stenosis that could then be directly related to the hemodynamic load placed on the left ventricle. A control volume form of conservation of energy was theoretically analyzed and modified for application to aortic valve stenosis measurements. In vitro physiologi cal pulsatile flow experiments were conducted with different types of aortic stenosis models, including a venturi meter, a nozzle, and 21-mm Medtronic-Hall tilting disc and St. Jude bileaflet mechanical valves. The energy loss created by each model was measured for a wide range o f experimental conditions, simulating physiological variation. In all cases, there was more energy lost for the nozzle (mean = 0.27 J) than for any other model for a given stroke volume. The two prosthetic valv es generated approximately the same energy losses (mean = 0.18 J), whi ch were not statistically different, whereas the venturi meter had the lowest energy loss for all conditions (mean = 0.037 J). Energy loss c orrelated poorly with orifice pressure drop (r(2) = 0.34) but correlat ed well with recovered pressure drop (r(2) = 0.94). However, when the valves were considered separately, orifice and recovered pressure drop were both strongly correlated with energy loss (r(2) = 0.99, 0.96). T he results show that recovered pressure drop, not orifice pressure dro p, is directly related to the energy loss that determines pump work an d therefore is a more accurate measure of the hemodynamic significance of aortic stenosis.