In-vivo blood velocity and velocity gradient profiles downstream of stented and stentless aortic heart valves.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Abnormal flow conditions across aortic bioprosthetic valves may result in degenerative processes. Thus, it is important to implant biological valve prostheses with velocity profiles similar to those of native valves. The study aim was to compare blood velocity and velocity gradient profiles downstream of stented and stentless aortic valves implanted in pigs, and in native porcine valves. METHODS: Stented valve prostheses (Mitroflow, n = 7) or stentless valve prostheses (Solo, n = 5 or Toronto SPV, n = 7) were implanted into pigs; the native valve was retained in eight animals. After weaning the animals from cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed to determine the blood velocities and velocity gradient profiles. RESULTS: The native valves had a significantly lower peak velocity (92 +/- 26 cm/s) than the artificial valves (Solo: 247 +/- 107 cm/s; Toronto: 252 +/- 41 cm/s; Mitroflow: 229 +/- 18 cm/s). The native valves exhibited a flat velocity profile during systole, whereas the Solo valve, and especially the Toronto SPV valve, displayed more parabola-shaped velocity profiles; velocity profiles downstream of the Mitroflow valve exhibited a flat shape. The native valves had a lower mean velocity gradient at peak systole (p < 0.0001). The velocity gradient percentage above mean was lowest for the native valve (0.14 +/- 0.11; p < 0.0001), while the Mitroflow valve had a percentage of 0.57 +/- 0.09, which was lower than the Solo valve (0.69 +/- 0.12; p = 0.074), and significantly lower than the Toronto valve (0.70 +/- 0.08; p = 0.015). All valves displayed high velocity gradients adjacent to the aortic wall; in particular, the Toronto SPV which also had high velocity gradients at the center of the vessel. CONCLUSION: All of the artificial valves tested had a significantly higher mean velocity gradient and peak velocity than the native valves. However, the Mitroflow had a mean velocity and a velocity gradient percentage lower than the two stentless valves. The Solo and Mitroflow valves displayed velocity profiles most like native valves, while the Toronto valve had a more irregular asymmetric velocity profile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".