HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): John B. Chambers Christopher I. Blauth Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Blauth, C. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Blauth, C. I. Related Collections Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:1388-1393
© 2003 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Nominal size in six bileaflet mechanical aortic valves: A comparison of orifice size and biologic equivalence

From the Cardiothoracic Centre,^a Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, and the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering,^b Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Received for publication April 4, 2002. Revisions requested July 8, 2002; revisions received July 15, 2002. Accepted for publication July 18, 2002. Address for reprints: John Chambers, MD, FACC, Cardiothoracic Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK (E-mail: johnchambers{at}dial.pipex.com).

Objectives: Nominal size remains the standard by which valves are compared, but its relationship with orifice area and the patient tissue annulus diameter may differ according to valve design. The aims of this study were to measure the orifice size and compare biologic equivalence in six bileaflet mechanical heart valve designs.
Methods: The inflow aspect of each of 29 valves was photographed then digitized, and the maximum internal diameter and orifice area were calculated. Biologic equivalence was assessed with a series of machined polypropylene blocks.
Results: The orifice area ranged between 159 and 222 mm² for the six size 19 valves. The internal diameter ranged from 1.6 to 4.6 mm less than the manufacturer's nominal size. Biologic equivalence assessed from an estimate of tissue annulus diameter with machined blocks ranged from 1.0 and 3.5 mm larger than nominal size for the intra-annular valves. This diameter ranged from 3.5 mm smaller to 1.5 mm larger than nominal size for the supra-annular valves.
Conclusion: There are major differences between nominal size and biologic equivalence. This may lead to confusion when attempting to make comparisons between different valve designs with the same nominal size. A clearer sizing nomenclature is required and could be based on in vitro assessment of tissue annulus diameter or an alphanumeric code.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. R. Bridges, S. M. O'Brien, J. C. Cleveland, E. B. Savage, J. S. Gammie, F. H. Edwards, E. D. Peterson, and F. L. Grover Association between indices of prosthesis internal orifice size and operative mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1012 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Gerosa, V. Tarzia, G. Rizzoli, and T. Bottio Reply to the Editor J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2007; 133(3): 847 - 849. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Gerosa, V. Tarzia, G. Rizzoli, and T. Bottio Small aortic annulus: The hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 1058 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Taggart Prosthesis patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement: possible but pertinent? Eur. Heart J., March 2, 2006; 27(6): 644 - 646. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Chambers, J. Roxburgh, C. Blauth, J. O'Riordan, F. Hodson, and H. Rimington A randomized comparison of the MCRI On-X and CarboMedics Top Hat bileaflet mechanical replacement aortic valves: Early postoperative hemodynamic function and clinical events J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2005; 130(3): 759 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-H. Sievers Prosthetic aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2005; 129(5): 961 - 965. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bottio, L. Caprili, D. Casarotto, and G. Gerosa Small aortic annulus: The hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet mechanical valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2004; 128(3): 457 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]