Can mechanical heart valves perform similarly to tissue valves? An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement options include bioprosthetic and mechanical heart valves (MHVs), each with inherent limitations. Bioprosthetic valves offer superior hemodynamics but suffer from durability issues, typically initiating deterioration within 7-8 years. MHVs, while durable, necessitate lifelong anticoagulation therapy, presenting risks such as severe bleeding and thromboembolic events. The need for anticoagulants is caused by non-physiological flow through the hinge area during the closed phase and large spikes of regional backflow velocity (RBV) during the closing phase that produces high shear events. This study introduces the iValve, a novel MHV designed to combine the hemodynamic benefits of bioprosthetic valves with the durability of MHVs without requiring anticoagulation. The iValve features eye-like leaflets, a saddle-shaped housing, and an optimized hinge design to enhance blood flow and minimize thrombotic risk. Fabricated using 6061-T6 aluminum and polyether ether ketone (PEEK), twelve iValve iterations were evaluated for their opening and closing dynamics. The reported top-performing prototypes demonstrated competitive performance against industry standards. The proposed iValve prototype exhibited a mean RBV of -4.34 m/s with no spikes in RBV, performing similarly to bioprosthetic valves and significantly outperforming existing MHVs. The iValve's optimized design showed a 7-10% reduction in closing time and a substantial decrease in RBV spikes, potentially reducing the need for anticoagulation therapy. This study highlights the iValve's potential to revolutionize prosthetic heart valve technology by offering a durable, hemodynamically superior solution that mitigates the drawbacks of current MHVs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".