ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HEART VALVE PROSTHESES WITH FLEXIBLE SUPPORTING FRAME COMPARED WITH THE CLASSIC STENTED PROSTHESES: EVALUATION OF THE HYDRODYNAMIC INDICATORS OF THE “UNILINE” AND “TIARA” BIOPROSTHESES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highlights The «TiAra» bioprosthetic heart valves have better hemodynamic characteristics, such as higher effective orifice area and a lower mean pressure gradient. The «UniLine» bioprosthetic heart valve demonstrated better closing dynamic, expressed in a smaller regurgitation volume. Aim. To assess hydrodynamic characteristics of the «TiAra» bioprosthetic heart valve with flexible supporting frame compared with the classic stented «UniLine» bioprosthetic aortic valve. Methods. Using the Vivitro Pulse Duplicator (Vivitro Labs, Canada), we simulated the function of the heart via generating pulsatile flow to analyze bioprosthetic heart valves. To comprehensively assess the bioprosthesis function, three valves of each standard size (21, 23, 25 mm) were submitted to hydrodynamic testing, thus making a sample of nine bioprostheses of each model. The article provides the analysis of the effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, regurgitation volume, and assessment of the statistical sensitivity of the parameters between groups at p = 0.05. Results. The assessment revealed that the «TiAra» bioprosthesis has bigger effective orifice area (p = 0.006) and lower mean pressure gradient (p = 0.02): 1.6–2.2 cm 2 and 3.6–6.3 mmHg versus 1.08–1.73 cm 2 and 4.8–12.1 mmHg, respectively. The regurgitation volume, however, was lower in the «UniLine» bioprostheses 0.8–4.1 mL/cycle versus 6.2–9.0 mL/cycle (p = 0.0004). Conclusion. Despite the fact that both studied models showed good hydrodynamic performance, the prosthesis with the flexible supporting frame («TiAra») showed better results regarding its effectiveness in vitro via presenting with bigger effective orifice area and lower mean pressure gradient. At the same time, the «UniLine» stented bioprosthesis had lower regurgitation volume, i.e. better closing dynamics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".