PubMed · 12440588
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ronald C Elkins. 2002. Tissue-engineered valves.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(02)04351-5
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The development of a 'smart' heart valve prosthesis, with the intrinsic ability to monitor thrombus formation, mechanical failure and local haemodynamics and to relay this information externally, would be of significant help to clinicians. The first step towards such a valve is development of the sensors and examination of whether sensor output provides predictive information on function. Custom-made piezo-electric sensors were mounted onto the housing of mechanical valves with various layers of simulated thrombus and bioprosthetic valves with normal and stiffened leaflets. Sensor output was examined using joint time-frequency analysis. Sensors were able to detect leaflet opening and closing with high fidelity for all types of valve. The frequency content of the closing sounds for the mechanical valves contained several peaks between 100 Hz and 10 kHz, whereas closing sounds for the bioprosthetic valve contained energy in a lower frequency range (<1 kHz). A frequency peak of 47 +/- 15 Hz was seen for the normal bioprosthetic valve; this peak increased to 115 +/- 12 Hz for the valve with visibly stiffened leaflets. Total low-frequency (80-3500 Hz) energy content diminished predictably with increasing levels of thrombus for the mechanical valves. Lastly, closing sound intensity correlated well with closing pressure dynamics (dp/dt) (y = 190x - 443; r = 0.90), indicating that the sensors also provide information on haemodynamics. These studies provide initial evidence regarding the use of embedded sensors to detect prosthetic valve function. Efforts to encapsulate these sensors with telemetry into a custom valve are currently underway.
BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is seldom used in clinical practice, but the choice between mechanical and biologic prostheses remains controversial. METHODS: Between 1977 and 2002, 97 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement and were followed at the Montreal Heart Institute Valve Clinic. Patients underwent replacement with bioprostheses (n = 82) and mechanical valves (n = 15). RESULTS: Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid replacements averaged 53 +/- 13 years of age compared with 48 +/- 11 years in those with tricuspid mechanical valve replacements (p = 0.2). Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 11 patients (73%) in the mechanical valve group compared with 31 patients (38%. p = 0.01) in the bioprosthetic replacement group. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic tricuspid replacement, 51 (62%) underwent multiple associated valve replacements. The 5-year survival after tricuspid replacement averaged 60% +/- 13% in the mechanical valve group and 56% +/- 6% in the biologic replacement group (p = 0.8). The 5-year freedom rate from tricuspid valve reoperation averaged 91% +/- 9% in patients with mechanical valves and 97% +/- 3% in those with biologic valves (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS; Patient survival after tricuspid valve replacement is suboptimal but related to the clinical condition at operation. The use of biologic prostheses for tricuspid valve replacement remains a good option in young patients because of limited life expectancy unrelated to the type of tricuspid prostheses at long-term follow-up.