ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Virtual Therapy Planning of Aortic Valve Replacement for Preventing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies suggest that any degree of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) increases morbidity and mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We used computational fluid dynamics simulations to test the influence of prosthesis size and physical activity after SAVR.
methodsIn 10 patients with aortic valve stenosis, virtual SAVR was performed. Left ventricular outflow tract stroke volume and flow direction information (4D Flow) were used, and an increase in stroke volume of 25% was chosen for simulating physical activity. Pressure gradients (DP max) across the aortic valve and blood flow profiles in the ascending aorta were calculated and predicted for three different valve sizes at rest and under stress in every patient.
resultsGradients across the aortic valve were significantly lower using larger valves; however, they were not normalized after SAVR (DP max [mmHg] norm/smaller/reference/larger valve = 6/14/12/9 mmHg, <0.01 compared to norm). Physical activity simulation increased DP max in all patients and across all valve sizes (DP max [mmHg] rest versus stress for the smaller/reference/larger valve = 14 vs. 23, 12 vs. 18, 9 vs. 14). Blood flow profiles did not normalize after SAVR and remained unaffected by physical activity. Gradients differed between mild and moderate stenosis between different therapy options and even showed moderate to severe stenosis under simulated physical activity.
conclusionsProsthesis size and physical activity simulation have a significant influence on gradients across the aortic valve. Virtual therapy planning using patient-specific data might help to improve outcomes after SAVR in the future.
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.