ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2020
Differences in Pressure Recovery Between Balloon Expandable and Self-expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding prosthesis patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement: from pitfalls to clinical impact.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Invasive and echocardiographic gradients of self- and balloon-expandable valves in failing aortic bioprostheses.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
- Insights from the assessment of anatomical valve orifice area after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transesophageal echocardiography.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Echocardiographic Hemodynamics After Aortic Valve Replacement, Wheat, and Bentall Procedure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of invasive versus echocardiography-derived aortic gradient in patients undergoing TAVI.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Review
- An In-Vitro Study of the Flow Past a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Using Time-Resolved 3D Particle Tracking.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Comparison of performance of self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves.JTCVS open · 2022Article
- Gradient and pressure recovery of a self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve depends on ascending aorta size: In vitro study.JTCVS open · 2022Article
- Comparison of Transvalvular Aortic Mean Gradients Obtained by Intraprocedural Echocardiography and Invasive Measurement in Balloon and Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pressure recovery downstream of the aortic valve constitutes an important factor affecting the calculation of pressure gradient (PG) across the valve and therefore the accuracy of the calculated aortic valve area. Some clinical studies hypothesized that stent and valve cusps design contribute to flow acceleration and Doppler-measured valve gradients across the balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. This study aims at elucidating the physical mechanisms behind pressure recovery variations between Edwards SAPIEN 3 and Medtronic Evolut TAVs through the measurements of sensitive and precise axial pressure profiles. A 23 mm Edwards SAPIEN3 and a 26 mm Medtronic Evolut were deployed in a pulse duplicator. A Millar catheter was used to record 50 cycles of pressure data along the centerline of the valve chamber upstream and downstream of the valve. The peak PG obtained with SAPIEN at vena contracta (VC) is 18.83 ± 0.75 mmHg and after recovery, 9.56 ± 0.78 mmHg. For Evolut at VC, peak PG is 18.25 ± 0.63 mmHg and after recovery, 10.3 ± 0.57 mmHg. The differences in peak PG at VC and at the recovery were statistically significant (p < 0.001). With SAPIEN 3 at VC, the mean PG obtained is 10.11 ± 0.63 mmHg and after recovery 7.06 ± 0.46 mmHg. For Evolut, mean PG at VC is 10.45 ± 0.67 mmHg and after recovery 7.99 ± 0.61 mmHg. The differences between the mean PG between the two valves was not statistically significant at VC (p = 0.71) but significant post-recovery (p < 0.00001). While gradients at the VC are higher with the SAPIEN 3, the net gradient after pressure recovery is significantly lower compared to Evolut TAV. Efficiency of pressure recovery significantly depends on valve type due to stent interference with the recovering blood flow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.