Prosthetic Valve Selection for a Pulsatile LVAD

Stephen G. Kovacs, Peter Mckeown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

During the final development of a unique Magnetically Actuated Left Ventricle Assist Device (MALVAD), three of the most widely used clinical prosthetic valves were evaluated to determine their suitability for the stringent requirements for LV AD use, in both the inflow and outflow positions. The three valves (St. Jude Medical-SJM; Medtronic Hall-MH; Bjork-Shiley Convex-Concave-BSCC), with lumen size of 25 mm, were tested in the same appropriate mock loop to the following set of hydraulic parameters: 1) after-load systemic pressure - constant 100 mmHg; 2) preload pressure ranged from 3 mm to 18 mmHg; 3) beat rate ranged from 60 bpm to 80 bpm. Pump actuator power was held constant, correspondent with specific bpm rate, for all valves tested. Results from a series of 10 bench tests per valve showed that the SJM was significantly better, on a statistical basis, than both the MH and BSCC valves, at fill pressures of 5 mmHg. At 10-mm fill pressure, however, the statistical flow rates for both the SJM and the MH valves were significantly superior to the BSCC valve, so that the BSCC valve was classified as a marginal candidate for LVAD use. The SJM and MH valves had bench test flow-rate values whose numerical difference was too small to serve conclusively as an arbitrary basis for valve choice. Because of this, the two valves were further evaluated in terms of two widely recognized, mandatory LV AD valve design criteria: (1) comparative mechanical ruggedness, and (2) relative ease and simplicity of LVAD design inclusion. The bench test flow studies served to qualify both the SJM and MH valves as essentially equal candidates for LVAD use. Evaluation based on comparative mechanical ruggedness and simplicity of L VAD design inclusion served to eliminate the SJM valve and select the MH valve for LVAD use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)515-520
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Engineering
Volume16
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991

Fingerprint

Prosthetics
Pressure
Flow rate
Heart-Assist Devices
Heart Ventricles
Actuators
Hydraulics
Pumps

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Prosthetic Valve Selection for a Pulsatile LVAD. / Kovacs, Stephen G.; Mckeown, Peter.

In: Journal of Clinical Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 6, 01.01.1991, p. 515-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kovacs, Stephen G. ; Mckeown, Peter. / Prosthetic Valve Selection for a Pulsatile LVAD. In: Journal of Clinical Engineering. 1991 ; Vol. 16, No. 6. pp. 515-520.
@article{bbcf5b345dc14fe7ab07e2a76aaa8f74,
title = "Prosthetic Valve Selection for a Pulsatile LVAD",
abstract = "During the final development of a unique Magnetically Actuated Left Ventricle Assist Device (MALVAD), three of the most widely used clinical prosthetic valves were evaluated to determine their suitability for the stringent requirements for LV AD use, in both the inflow and outflow positions. The three valves (St. Jude Medical-SJM; Medtronic Hall-MH; Bjork-Shiley Convex-Concave-BSCC), with lumen size of 25 mm, were tested in the same appropriate mock loop to the following set of hydraulic parameters: 1) after-load systemic pressure - constant 100 mmHg; 2) preload pressure ranged from 3 mm to 18 mmHg; 3) beat rate ranged from 60 bpm to 80 bpm. Pump actuator power was held constant, correspondent with specific bpm rate, for all valves tested. Results from a series of 10 bench tests per valve showed that the SJM was significantly better, on a statistical basis, than both the MH and BSCC valves, at fill pressures of 5 mmHg. At 10-mm fill pressure, however, the statistical flow rates for both the SJM and the MH valves were significantly superior to the BSCC valve, so that the BSCC valve was classified as a marginal candidate for LVAD use. The SJM and MH valves had bench test flow-rate values whose numerical difference was too small to serve conclusively as an arbitrary basis for valve choice. Because of this, the two valves were further evaluated in terms of two widely recognized, mandatory LV AD valve design criteria: (1) comparative mechanical ruggedness, and (2) relative ease and simplicity of LVAD design inclusion. The bench test flow studies served to qualify both the SJM and MH valves as essentially equal candidates for LVAD use. Evaluation based on comparative mechanical ruggedness and simplicity of L VAD design inclusion served to eliminate the SJM valve and select the MH valve for LVAD use.",
author = "Kovacs, {Stephen G.} and Peter Mckeown",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00004669-199111000-00014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "515--520",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Engineering",
issn = "0363-8855",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prosthetic Valve Selection for a Pulsatile LVAD

AU - Kovacs, Stephen G.

AU - Mckeown, Peter

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - During the final development of a unique Magnetically Actuated Left Ventricle Assist Device (MALVAD), three of the most widely used clinical prosthetic valves were evaluated to determine their suitability for the stringent requirements for LV AD use, in both the inflow and outflow positions. The three valves (St. Jude Medical-SJM; Medtronic Hall-MH; Bjork-Shiley Convex-Concave-BSCC), with lumen size of 25 mm, were tested in the same appropriate mock loop to the following set of hydraulic parameters: 1) after-load systemic pressure - constant 100 mmHg; 2) preload pressure ranged from 3 mm to 18 mmHg; 3) beat rate ranged from 60 bpm to 80 bpm. Pump actuator power was held constant, correspondent with specific bpm rate, for all valves tested. Results from a series of 10 bench tests per valve showed that the SJM was significantly better, on a statistical basis, than both the MH and BSCC valves, at fill pressures of 5 mmHg. At 10-mm fill pressure, however, the statistical flow rates for both the SJM and the MH valves were significantly superior to the BSCC valve, so that the BSCC valve was classified as a marginal candidate for LVAD use. The SJM and MH valves had bench test flow-rate values whose numerical difference was too small to serve conclusively as an arbitrary basis for valve choice. Because of this, the two valves were further evaluated in terms of two widely recognized, mandatory LV AD valve design criteria: (1) comparative mechanical ruggedness, and (2) relative ease and simplicity of LVAD design inclusion. The bench test flow studies served to qualify both the SJM and MH valves as essentially equal candidates for LVAD use. Evaluation based on comparative mechanical ruggedness and simplicity of L VAD design inclusion served to eliminate the SJM valve and select the MH valve for LVAD use.

AB - During the final development of a unique Magnetically Actuated Left Ventricle Assist Device (MALVAD), three of the most widely used clinical prosthetic valves were evaluated to determine their suitability for the stringent requirements for LV AD use, in both the inflow and outflow positions. The three valves (St. Jude Medical-SJM; Medtronic Hall-MH; Bjork-Shiley Convex-Concave-BSCC), with lumen size of 25 mm, were tested in the same appropriate mock loop to the following set of hydraulic parameters: 1) after-load systemic pressure - constant 100 mmHg; 2) preload pressure ranged from 3 mm to 18 mmHg; 3) beat rate ranged from 60 bpm to 80 bpm. Pump actuator power was held constant, correspondent with specific bpm rate, for all valves tested. Results from a series of 10 bench tests per valve showed that the SJM was significantly better, on a statistical basis, than both the MH and BSCC valves, at fill pressures of 5 mmHg. At 10-mm fill pressure, however, the statistical flow rates for both the SJM and the MH valves were significantly superior to the BSCC valve, so that the BSCC valve was classified as a marginal candidate for LVAD use. The SJM and MH valves had bench test flow-rate values whose numerical difference was too small to serve conclusively as an arbitrary basis for valve choice. Because of this, the two valves were further evaluated in terms of two widely recognized, mandatory LV AD valve design criteria: (1) comparative mechanical ruggedness, and (2) relative ease and simplicity of LVAD design inclusion. The bench test flow studies served to qualify both the SJM and MH valves as essentially equal candidates for LVAD use. Evaluation based on comparative mechanical ruggedness and simplicity of L VAD design inclusion served to eliminate the SJM valve and select the MH valve for LVAD use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026253901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026253901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004669-199111000-00014

DO - 10.1097/00004669-199111000-00014

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 515

EP - 520

JO - Journal of Clinical Engineering

JF - Journal of Clinical Engineering

SN - 0363-8855

IS - 6

ER -