Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31792706›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2020

Differences in Pressure Recovery Between Balloon Expandable and Self-expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves.

Hoda Hatoum, Rebecca T Hahn, Scott Lilly, Lakshmi Prasad Dasi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hoda HatoumDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 473 W 12th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Rebecca T HahnDivision of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Scott LillyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Lakshmi Prasad DasiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 473 W 12th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. lakshmi.dasi@gatech.edu.
The Ohio State University · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

Hyaluronan enhanced polymeric heart valve prosthesisR01HL119824 · NHLBI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DASI, LAKSHMI PRASAD · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
American Heart Association-American Stroke Association 19POST34380804NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL119824NIH HHS R01HL119824
6 · The paper itself

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

Heart Valve ProsthesisModels, CardiovascularTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAortic ValveFemaleHumansMaleCatheterizationDopplerPressure gradientPressure recoveryTranscatheter aortic valveTurbulence

Identifiers

PMID31792706
PMCPMC11043825
OpenAlexW2992071771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.