ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2024
Image-Based Computational Fluid Dynamics to Compare Two Repair Techniques for Mitral Valve Prolapse.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitral Valve Repair vs. Replacement: Hemodynamics in Valve Surgery.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Left ventricular flow dynamics by cardiac imaging techniques in heart failure patients: state of the art.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe treatment of mitral valve prolapse involves two distinct repair techniques: chordal replacement (Neochordae technique) and leaflet resection (Resection technique). However, there is still a debate in the literature about which is the optimal one. In this context, we performed an image-based computational fluid dynamic study to evaluate blood dynamics in the two surgical techniques.
methodsWe considered a healthy subject (H) and two patients (N and R) who underwent surgery for prolapse of the posterior leaflet and were operated with the Neochordae and Resection technique, respectively. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was employed with prescribed motion of the entire left heart coming from cine-MRI images, with a Large Eddy Simulation model to describe the transition to turbulence and a resistive method for managing valve dynamics. We created three different virtual scenarios where the operated mitral valves were inserted in the same left heart geometry of the healthy subject to study the differences attributed only to the two techniques.
resultsWe compared the three scenarios by quantitatively analyzing ventricular velocity patterns and pressures, transition to turbulence, and the ventricle ability to prevent thrombi formation. From these results, we found that the operative techniques affected the ventricular blood dynamics in different ways, with variations attributed to the reduced mobility of the Resection posterior leaflet. Specifically, the Resection technique resulted in turbulent forces, related with the risk of hemolysis formation, up to 640 Pa, while the other two scenarios exhibited a maximum of 240 Pa. Moreover, in correspondence of the ventricular apex, the Resection technique reduced the areas with low velocity to 15%, whereas the healthy case and the Neochordae case maintained these areas at 30 and 48%, respectively. Our findings suggest that the Neochordae technique developed a more physiological flow with respect to the Resection technique.
conclusionResection technique gives rise to a different direction of the mitral jet during diastole increasing the ability to washout the ventricular apex preventing from thrombi formation, but at the same time it promotes turbulence formation that is associated with ventricular effort and risk of hemolysis.
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.