ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HEART VALVE PROSTHESES WITH FLEXIBLE SUPPORTING FRAME COMPARED WITH THE CLASSIC STENTED PROSTHESES: EVALUATION OF THE HYDRODYNAMIC INDICATORS OF THE “UNILINE” AND “TIARA” BIOPROSTHESES

Highlights

• The «TiAra» bioprosthetic heart valves have better hemodynamic characteristics, such as higher effective orifice area and a lower mean pressure gradient.
• The «UniLine» bioprosthetic heart valve demonstrated better closing dynamic, expressed in a smaller regurgitation volume.

Aim. To assess hydrodynamic characteristics of the «TiAra» bioprosthetic heart valve with flexible supporting frame compared with the classic stented «UniLine» bioprosthetic aortic valve.

Methods. Using the Vivitro Pulse Duplicator (Vivitro Labs, Canada), we simulated the function of the heart via generating pulsatile flow to analyze bioprosthetic heart valves. To comprehensively assess the bioprosthesis function, three valves of each standard size (21, 23, 25 mm) were submitted to hydrodynamic testing, thus making a sample of nine bioprostheses of each model. The article provides the analysis of  the effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, regurgitation volume, and assessment of the statistical sensitivity of the parameters between groups at p = 0.05.

Results. The assessment revealed that the «TiAra» bioprosthesis has bigger effective orifice area (p = 0.006) and lower mean pressure gradient (p = 0.02): 1.6–2.2 cm² and 3.6–6.3 mmHg versus 1.08–1.73 cm² and 4.8–12.1 mmHg, respectively. The regurgitation volume, however, was lower in the «UniLine» bioprostheses 0.8–4.1 mL/cycle versus 6.2–9.0 mL/cycle (p = 0.0004).

Conclusion. Despite the fact that both studied models showed good hydrodynamic performance, the prosthesis with the flexible supporting frame («TiAra») showed better results regarding its effectiveness in vitro via presenting with bigger effective orifice area and lower mean pressure gradient. At the same time, the «UniLine» stented bioprosthesis had lower regurgitation volume, i.e. better closing dynamics.

1. Bokeriya L.A., Milievskaya E.B., Kudzoeva Z.F., Pryanishnikov V.V., Scopin A.I., Yurlov I.A. Serdechnososudistaya khirurgiya – 2018. Bolezni i vrozhdennye anomalii sistemy krovoobrashcheniya. Moscow: NMITsSSKh im. A.N. Bakuleva MZ RF; 2018. 270 s

2. Fedorov S.A., Chiginev V.A., Zhurko S.A., Gamzaev A.B., Medvedev A.P. Clinical and hemodynamic results of applying different biological prosthesis models for correction of calcific aortic valve disease. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2016; 8(4): 292-296

3. Stanger O., Tevaearai H., Carrel T. The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve. Research Reports in Clinical Cardiology. 2014; 349. doi:10.2147/RRCC.S72978

4. Harky A., Chan J.S.K., Ahmad M., Froghi S., Rimmer L., Bashir M. Stented versus stentless aortic valve replacement in elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Visualized Surgery. 2018; 4: 201–201. doi:10.21037/jovs.2018.08.17

5. Dunning J., Graham R.J., Thambyrajah J., Stewart M.J., Kendall S.W.H., Hunter S. Stentless vs. stented aortic valve bioprostheses: a prospective randomized controlled trial. European Heart Journal. 2007; 28(19): 2369–2374. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm327

6. Kudryavtseva Yu.A. Bioprosthetic heart valves. From idea to clinical use. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2015;(4):6-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17802/2306-1278-2015-4-6-16

7. Harky A., Wong C.H.M., Hof A., Froghi S., Ahmad M.U., Howard C., Rimmer L., Bashir M. Stented versus Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Small Aortic Root. Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. 2018; 13(6): 404–416. doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000569

8. Raghav V., Okafor I., Quach M., Dang L., Marquez S., Yoganathan A.P. Long-Term Durability of Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease Valve: A One Billion Cycle In Vitro Study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2016; 101(5): 1759–1765. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.10.069

9. Claiborne T.E., Girdhar G., Gallocher-Lowe S., Sheriff J., Kato Y.P., Pinchuk L., Schoephoerster R.T., Jesty J., Bluestein D. Thrombogenic Potential of Innovia Polymer Valves versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Aortic Bioprosthetic Valves. ASAIO Journal. 2011; 57(1): 26–31. doi:10.1097/MAT.0b013e3181fcbd86

10. Tasca G., Vismara R., Mangini A., Romagnoni C., Contino M., Redaelli A., Fiore G.B., Antona C. Comparison of the Performance of a Sutureless Bioprosthesis With Two Pericardial Stented Valves on Small Annuli: An In Vitro Study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017; 103(1): 139–144. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.089

11. Nagy Z.L., Fisher J., Walker P.G., Watterson K.G. The Effect of Sizing on the Hydrodynamic Parameters of the Medtronic Freestyle Valve In Vitro. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; (69): 1408–1413.

12. Kobelev E., Bergen T.A., Tarkova A.R., Krestyaninov O.V., Bobrikova E.E., Safro I.K., Chernyavsky A.M., Zhuravleva I.Y. A New Look at Structural Changes in the Aortic Root in Aortic Valve Stenosis. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine. 2022; 14(2): 51. doi:10.17691/stm2022.14.2.05