Comparative Study of Single Opening&Closing and Continuous Pulsatile Flow Valve Tester.

PURPOSE

The 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).

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

In 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).

CONCLUSION

There 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.