Purpose: We exploited 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D Flow), combined with a standardized in vitro setting, to establish a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic hemodynamic comparison of surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (BPVs). Materials and methods: 4D Flow analysis was performed on two small sizes of three commercialized pericardial BPVs (Trifecta™ GT, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna and Crown PRT®). Each BPV was tested over a clinically pertinent range of continuous flow rates within an in vitro MRI-compatible system, equipped with pressure transducers. In-house 4D Flow post-processing of the post-valvular velocity field included the quantification of BPV effective orifice area (EOA), transvalvular pressure gradients (TPG), kinetic energy and viscous energy dissipation. Results: The 4D Flow technique effectively captured the 3-dimensional flow pattern of each device. Trifecta exhibited the lowest range of velocity and kinetic energy, maximized EOA (p < 0.0001) and minimized TPGs (p ≤ 0.015) if compared with Magna and Crown, these reporting minor EOA difference s (p ≥ 0.042) and similar TPGs (p ≥ 0.25). 4D Flow TPGs estimations strongly correlated against ground-truth data from pressure transducers; viscous energy dissipation proved to be inversely proportional to the fluid jet penetration. Conclusion: The proposed 4D Flow analysis pinpointed consistent hemodynamic differences among BPVs, highlighting the not negligible effect of device size on the fluidynamic outcomes. The efficacy of non-invasive 4D Flow MRI protocol could shed light on how standardize the comparison among devices in relation to their actual hemodynamic performances and improve current criteria for their selection.

4D Flow MRI hemodynamic benchmarking of surgical bioprosthetic valves

Sturla F.;Piatti F.;Jaworek M.;Lucherini F.;Pluchinotta F. R.;Vismara R.;Tasca G.;Redaelli A.;
2020

Abstract

Purpose: We exploited 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D Flow), combined with a standardized in vitro setting, to establish a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic hemodynamic comparison of surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves (BPVs). Materials and methods: 4D Flow analysis was performed on two small sizes of three commercialized pericardial BPVs (Trifecta™ GT, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna and Crown PRT®). Each BPV was tested over a clinically pertinent range of continuous flow rates within an in vitro MRI-compatible system, equipped with pressure transducers. In-house 4D Flow post-processing of the post-valvular velocity field included the quantification of BPV effective orifice area (EOA), transvalvular pressure gradients (TPG), kinetic energy and viscous energy dissipation. Results: The 4D Flow technique effectively captured the 3-dimensional flow pattern of each device. Trifecta exhibited the lowest range of velocity and kinetic energy, maximized EOA (p < 0.0001) and minimized TPGs (p ≤ 0.015) if compared with Magna and Crown, these reporting minor EOA difference s (p ≥ 0.042) and similar TPGs (p ≥ 0.25). 4D Flow TPGs estimations strongly correlated against ground-truth data from pressure transducers; viscous energy dissipation proved to be inversely proportional to the fluid jet penetration. Conclusion: The proposed 4D Flow analysis pinpointed consistent hemodynamic differences among BPVs, highlighting the not negligible effect of device size on the fluidynamic outcomes. The efficacy of non-invasive 4D Flow MRI protocol could shed light on how standardize the comparison among devices in relation to their actual hemodynamic performances and improve current criteria for their selection.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2020_Sturla_MRI.pdf

embargo fino al 01/06/2021

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 3.65 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.65 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11311/1154766
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact