ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2024
Comparative Study of Single Opening&Closing and Continuous Pulsatile Flow Valve Tester.
Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe purpose is to demonstrate the difference in closing volume fraction between the single opening&closing valve tester (SOCVT) and continuous pulsatile flow valve tester (CPFVT).
methodsA comparative study was conducted in four hemodynamic conditions selected from the ISO 5840 on the four mitral valve states: normal annulus, 40% annulus dilation, 60% annulus dilation, and repaired valve with a clip device in both the SOCVT and CPFVT. The closing volume fractions were compared and errors calculated in the 16 cases.
resultsIn the CPFVT, the flowrate waveform depends more on hemodynamic conditions rather than the valve morphology. For closing volume fractions in the two testers, twelve cases had errors between 10% and 20% and 3 cases had errors between 2.2% and 5.5%. There was no statistic difference in the closing volume fraction between the CPFVT and SOCVT for the normal annulus, 40% valve annulus dilation, 60% valve annulus dilation and repaired valves (P values = 0.44, 0.44, 0.33, and 0.08, respectively, n = 4).
conclusionThere is certain error in closing volume measurements, even if no statistic difference in closing volume measured by the SOCVT and CPFVT. The typical flow waveforms of the mitral valve may be available to standardize testing of the SOCVT to evaluate valve hemodynamics. The SOCVT may be an alternative to the valve testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39160331What 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.