ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Haemodynamic Performance of Transcatheter Heart Valve in Bileaflet Mechanical Valve: An In-vitro Study.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluates the haemodynamic performance of a novel hybrid configuration-Valve-in-MHV-where a CoreValve transcatheter heart valve is implanted within the annulus of a composite valved graft after leaflet removal.
methodsIn vitro testing was performed using left heart mock loop combined with backlight particle image velocimetry. Three configurations were assessed: (i) mechanical heart valve (MHV), (ii) CoreValve THV, and (iii) Valve-in-MHV. Flow parameters were measured at cardiac outputs of 3 and 5 L/min.
resultsAt 5 L/min, the Valve-in-MHV showed the highest PG (15.5 mmHg) and TKE (0.53 m2/s2), compared to the THV (10.9 mmHg, 0.31 m2/s2) and MHV (11.5 mmHg, 0.26 m2/s2). Effective orifice area was smallest for the Valve-in-MHV (1.44 cm2). The Valve-in-MHV generated a more physiological central jet than the MHV, but with increased turbulence and higher peak velocities (up to 2.66 m/s).
conclusionsExamining the mechanistic implications of Valve-in-MHV may offer valuable insights into the likelihood of adverse effects such as leaflet thrombosis and the development of pronounced pressure gradients in patients who are candidates for Valve-in-MHV.
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.