The Effects of Left Ventricular Assist Device Support Level on the Biomechanical States of Aortic Valve

Current status and future directions in pediatric ventricular assist device

A ventricular assist device (VAD) is a form of mechanical circulatory support that uses a mechanical pump to partially or fully take over the function of a failed heart. In recent decades, the VAD has become a crucial option in the treatment of end-stage heart failure in adult patients. However, due to the lack of suitable devices and more complicated patient profiles, this therapeutic approach is still not widely used for pediatric populations. This article reviews the clinically available devices, adverse events, and future directions of design and implementation in pediatric VADs.

A Doppler-exclusive non-invasive computational diagnostic framework for personalized transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Given the associated risks with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is crucial to determine how the implant will affect the valve dynamics and cardiac function, and if TAVR will improve or worsen the outcome of the patient. Effective treatment strategies, indeed, rely heavily on the complete understanding of the valve dynamics. We developed an innovative Doppler-exclusive non-invasive computational framework that can function as a diagnostic tool to assess valve dynamics in patients with aortic stenosis in both pre- and post-TAVR status. Clinical Doppler pressure was reduced by TAVR (52.2 ± 20.4 vs. 17.3 ± 13.8 [mmHg], p < 0.001), but it was not always accompanied by improvements in valve dynamics and left ventricle (LV) hemodynamics metrics. TAVR had no effect on LV workload in 4 patients, and LV workload post-TAVR significantly rose in 4 other patients. Despite the group level improvements in maximum LV pressure (166.4 ± 32.2 vs 131.4 ± 16.9 [mmHg], p < 0.05), only 5 of the 12 patients (41%) had a decrease in LV pressure. Moreover, TAVR did not always improve valve dynamics. TAVR did not necessarily result in a decrease (in 9 out of 12 patients investigated in this study) in major principal stress on the aortic valve leaflets which is one of the main contributors in valve degeneration and, consequently, failure of heart valves. Diastolic stresses increased significantly post-TAVR (34%, 109% and 81%, p < 0.001) for each left, right and non-coronary leaflets respectively. Moreover, we quantified the stiffness and material properties of aortic valve leaflets which correspond with the reduced calcified region average stiffness among leaflets (66%, 74% and 62%; p < 0.001; N = 12). Valve dynamics post-intervention should be quantified and monitored to ensure the improvement of patient conditions and prevent any further complications. Improper evaluation of biomechanical valve features pre-intervention as well as post-intervention may result in harmful effects post-TAVR in patients including paravalvular leaks, valve degeneration, failure of TAVR and heart failure.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Support-Induced Alteration of Mechanical Stress on Aortic Valve and Aortic Wall

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluid dynamics in the aortic valve and proximal aorta during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support using epiaortic echocardiography and vector flow mapping technology. A total of 12 patients who underwent HeartMate 3 implantation between December 2018 and February 2020 were prospectively examined. The wall shear stress (WSS) on the ascending aorta, aortic root, and aortic valve was evaluated before and after LVAD implantation. The median age of the cohort was 62 years and 17% were women. The peak WSS on the ascending aorta (Pre 1.48 [0.86-1.69] [Pascal {Pa}] vs. Post 0.33 [0.21-0.58] [Pa]; p = 0.002), aortic root (Pre 0.46 [0.31-0.58] (Pa) vs. Post 0.18 [0.12-0.25] (Pa); p = 0.001), and ventricularis of the aortic valve (Pre 1.76 [1.59-2.30] (Pa) vs. Post 0.30 [0.10-0.61] (Pa); p = 0.001) was significantly lower after LVAD implantation. No difference in WSS was observed on the fibrosa of the aortic valve (Pre 0.36 [0.22-0.53] (Pa) vs. Post 0.38 [0.38-0.52] (Pa); p = 0.850) before and after implantation. The WSS on the ascending aorta, aortic root, and ventricularis of the aortic valve leaflets was significantly altered by LVAD implantation, providing preliminary data on the potential contribution of fluid dynamics to LVAD-induced aortic insufficiency and root thrombus.

Biomechanical effects of the working modes of LVADs on the aortic valve: A primary numerical study

Aortic valve diseases caused by the support from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have attracted increasing attention due to the wide application of the LVADs. However, the biomechanical effects of the working modes of LVADs on the aortic valve are still poorly understood. Hence, in this study, these biomechanical effects are investigated using a novel fluid-structure interaction method, which combines the lattice Boltzmann and the finite element methods. On the basis of the clinical practice, three working modes of LVADs, namely, the constant flow, co-pulse, and counter pulse modes, are chosen. Results demonstrate that the working mode of LVADs is an important factor as it can change the biomechanical states of the aortic valve and the hemodynamic environment in the aortic root directly. Compared with the constant flow mode, the two other working modes can provide better biomechanical effects on the aortic valve. However, the advantages of the co-pulse and the counter pulse modes on the aortic valve are not the same. The LVADs in the co-pulse mode can remarkable reduce the pressure load of the leaflets during the diastolic phase (maximum stress: co-pulse mode, 0.85 MPa; constant flow mode, 1.23 MPa; counter pulse mode, 1.50 MPa). By contrast, the LVADs in the counter pulse mode can achieve the highest effective orifice area of the aortic valve (co-pulse mode: 0.12 cm², constant flow mode: 0.17 cm², counter pulse mode: 0.25 cm²). In sum, the co-pulse mode is suitable for patients with certain cardiac function, because this mode keeps the valve open intermittently and reduces the pressure load on the aortic leaflets during the diastolic phase to prevent valve remodeling. By contrast, the counter pulse mode is suitable for patients with severely impaired cardiac function, because this mode keeps the valve open as much as possible and provides high blood perfusion.

Hemodynamic effects of support modes of LVADs on the aortic valve

As the alternative treatment for heart failure, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been widely applied to clinical practice. However, the effects of the support modes of LVADs on the biomechanical states of the aortic valve are still poorly understood. Hence, the present study investigates such effects and proposes a novel fluid-structure interaction (FSI) approach that combines the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) and finite element (FE) method. Two support modes of LVADs, namely constant speed mode and constant flow mode, which have been widely applied to clinical practice, are also designed. Results demonstrate that the support modes of LVADs could significantly affect the biomechanical states of the aortic valve and the blood flow pattern of the ascending aorta. Compared with those in the constant flow mode, the leaflets in the constant speed mode could achieve better dynamic performance and lower stress during the systolic phase. The max radial displacement of the leaflets in the constant speed mode is at 8 mm, whereas that in the constant flow mode is at 0.8 mm. Furthermore, the outflow of LVADs directly impacts the aortic surfaces of the leaflets during the diastolic phase by increasing the level of wall shear stress of the leaflets. The leaflets in the constant speed mode receive less impact than those in the constant flow mode. The condition with such minimal impact is conducive to maintaining the normal structure of leaflets and benefits the reduction of the risk of valvular diseases. In sum, the support modes of LVADs exert a crucial effect on the biomechanical environment of the aortic valve. The constant speed mode is better than the constant flow mode in terms of providing a good hemodynamic environment for the aortic valve.