Artificial Heart Valves

From OpenWetWare

Revision as of 13:02, 24 February 2013 by Stephanie E. Polgar (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

History

"(a) First ball valve for animal implantation. (b) Sole surviving animal, surrounded by members of our team. (c) The shielded ball valve. (d) Autopsy specimen of a shielded ball valve showing a clot confined to the zone of implantation and covered by the Silastic shield." [A]
"(a) First ball valve for animal implantation. (b) Sole surviving animal, surrounded by members of our team. (c) The shielded ball valve. (d) Autopsy specimen of a shielded ball valve showing a clot confined to the zone of implantation and covered by the Silastic shield." [A]

1952- First heart valve replacement using the caged-ball valve designed by a surgeon, Doctor Hufnagel. This valve did not replace the patient's diseased aortic valve but instead it was inserted in the descending aorta in an open-chest procedure.
1960- ball valves are introduced
1962- aortic homografts are introduced
1965- glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine 'bioprostheses'
1969- disc valves
1977- invention of bileaflet valves by St. John's Medical

Overview

Heart Basics

Reasons for Valve Replacement

Types of Artificial Heart Valves

Mechanical

Tissue/Bioprosthetic

Complications

With any surgery there is always a chance of complications. “Problems common to all heart valve replacement devices include small but persistent risks of endocarditis and paravalvular leak.”[1] Thromboembolism is also a common complication in heart valve replacements due to atrial fibrillation; homographs are an exception to this rule. Mitral valve replacements have the highest risk of thromboembolism. Artificial heart valves (like any foreign implantation in the body) inflict what is known as a neodisease[1] that can cause side effects such as rejection. “If valve replacement is successful and uncomplicated, most patients experience an improvement in their symptomatic state, and therefore in their quality of life.” [1] Mortality post implantation is very rare; in most cases death is due to patient-related factors. [1] The following complications have directed future research into the design of artificial heart valves. Some main focuses of current and future research include: engineering living tissue heart valves and further study related to the fluid mechanics of the heart to enhance the direction of future mechanical heart valves. [2]

Specific to Mechanical

Structural failure is a risk associated with all mechanical devices; some types of mechanical valves have an increased risk. Mechanical heart valves require anti-coagulants to prevent build-up of plaque around the device. These anti-coagulants pose the potential for bleeding complications. “Hemolysis is more common with some types of mechanical valves, but is usually subclinical in the absence of valvular malfunction”[1] “These complications are believed to be associated with non-physiological blood flow patterns”[2]. “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 anticoagulantion therapy” [2].

Specific to Tissue

Leaflet tearing is an issue for all tissue-based heart valves regardless of donor. [2] “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.”[2] “Tissue valve disruption is virtually inevitable, provided the patient lives long enough” [1].

Transcatheter Heart Valves

Alternatives to Heart Valve Replacement

References

[1]Grunkemeir, Gary L. and Shahbudin H. Rahimtoola, “Artificial Heart Valves” Annual Review of Medicine 41 pp 251-63 (1990).
[2]Dasi, Lakshmi P. et al., “Fluid Mechanics of Artificial Heart Valves” Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 36 pp 225-237 (2009).

Personal tools