Abstract
Purpose
The goal of this study was to demonstrate the range in effective orifice area (EOA) values that may be possible given the ISO 5840 definition of EOA and the practical limits in the accurate measurement of pressure differential across large diameter valves.
Methods
A 31 mm mechanical valve was tested on a commercially available pulse duplicator configured for mitral valve testing and tuned to nominal conditions. The experimental data was used as a basis for performing Monte Carlo analyses with published specifications for commonly used pressure sensors as well as measurement equipment accuracy requirements described in ISO 5840. The sources of error were modeled as normally distributed random variables and the simulation was iterated 1,000,000 times.
Results
Experimentally-derived EOAs ranged from 2.7 to 5.0 cm2, while the Monte Carlo simulation provided results ranging from approximately 0.4 to 6.7 cm2. Many of these results are clearly non-physical with EOAs larger than the valve’s geometric orifice area and exceedingly short positive pressure differential periods, yet they align with other published results for the same valve model.
Conclusions
The volatility of the standard EOA formulation at low mean gradients combined with the difficulty in accurately measuring such small differentials with industry-standard fluid pressure transducers results in a performance metric which is very sensitive to test execution, particularly for low-gradient prostheses.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cannon, S. R., K. L. Richards, and M. Crawford. Hydraulic estimation of stenotic orifice area: A correction of the gorlin formula. Circulation 71:1170–1178, 1985.
Dumesnil, J. G., and A. P. Yoganathan. Theoretical and practical differences between the gorlin formula and the continuity equation for calculating aortic and mitral valve areas. Am. J. Cardiol. 67:1268–1272, 1991.
Gorlin, R., and S. Gorlin. Hydraulic formula for calculation of the area of the stenotic mitral valve, other cardiac valves, and central circulatory shunts I. Am. Heart J. 41:1–29, 1951.
ISO 5840-3:2021. (n.d.). Cardiovascular implants — Cardiac valve prostheses — Part 3: Heart valve substitutes implanted by transcatheter techniques.
Saikrishnan, N., G. Kumar, F. J. Sawaya, S. Lerakis, and A. P. Yoganathan. Accurate assessment of aortic stenosis: A review of diagnostic modalities and hemodynamics. Circulation 129:244–253, 2014.
Wu, C., N. Saikrishnan, A. J. Chalekian, R. Fraser, O. Ieropoli, S. M. Retta, U. Steinseifer, et al. In-vitro pulsatile flow testing of prosthetic heart valves: A round-robin study by the ISO Cardiac Valves Working Group. Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol. 10:397–422, 2019.
Conflict of interest
All authors are employed by Abbott Laboratories.
Research Involving Human and animal Studies
No human and animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Associate Editor Igor Efimov oversaw the review of this article.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Floersch, J., Evans, M.C. & Midha, P.A. Ineffective Orifice Area: Practical Limitations of Accurate EOA Assessment for Low-Gradient Heart Valve Prostheses. Cardiovasc Eng Tech 12, 598–605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00548-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13239-021-00548-5