4.3 Review

FLUID MECHANICS OF ARTIFICIAL HEART VALVES

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.05099.x

关键词

aortic; bileaflet; circulation; haemodynamics; heart valve; mechanical; mitral; prosthesis; trileaflet

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL070262-05A1, R01 HL070262] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artificial heart valves have been in use for over five decades to replace diseased heart valves. Since the first heart valve replacement performed with a caged-ball valve, more than 50 valve designs have been developed, differing principally in valve geometry, number of leaflets and material. To date, all artificial heart valves are plagued with complications associated with haemolysis, coagulation for mechanical heart valves and leaflet tearing for tissue-based valve prosthesis. For mechanical heart valves, these complications are believed to be associated with non-physiological blood flow patterns. In the present review, we provide a bird's-eye view of fluid mechanics for the major artificial heart valve types and highlight how the engineering approach has shaped this rapidly diversifying area of research. Mechanical heart valve designs have evolved significantly, with the most recent designs providing relatively superior haemodynamics with very low aerodynamic resistance. However, high shearing of blood cells and platelets still pose significant design challenges and patients must undergo life-long anticoagulation therapy. Bioprosthetic or tissue valves do not require anticoagulants due to their distinct similarity to the native valve geometry and haemodynamics, but many of these valves fail structurally within the first 10-15 years of implantation. These shortcomings have directed present and future research in three main directions in attempts to design superior artificial valves: (i) engineering living tissue heart valves; (ii) development of advanced computational tools; and (iii) blood experiments to establish the link between flow and blood damage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据