Skip to content

Computational Assessment of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Function

Comparing the In-vivo Haemodynamic and Biomechanical Performance of Rapid-deployment Edwards Intuity Elite System and Edwards Magna Ease Valve

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06306729
Enrollment
20
Registered
2024-03-12
Start date
2024-04-01
Completion date
2026-04-01
Last updated
2024-03-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

CFD, Valve Heart Disease

Keywords

Bioprosthesis

Brief summary

Bioprosthetic valves are usually made of biological tissue that are mounted to a frame and are designed to function similarly to a healthy natural valve. Edwards Magna Ease and Intuity Elite bioprosthetic valves have similar leaflets and mounting designs. However, the valves are implanted in the patient in different ways (one is stitched to the wall of the left ventricular outflow tract, and the other is held in place by the radial force of the valve skirt). The study aims to understand in more detail how the different valves interact with the left ventricular outflow tract and aortic root.

Detailed description

The implantation of a bioprosthetic valve is the established surgical technique when replacing the aortic valve to treat various aortic valve diseases. Many different bioprosthetic valves are available. The design and implantation technique in each system would result in different interaction with the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) and the aortic root, leading to different flow profiles that may induce platelet aggregation and affect the long-term performance of the bioprosthesis and its durability. Additionally, complications such as valve thrombosis may occur. However, it is not currently clear which bioprostheses/patients are more prone to thrombosis or degradation of the valve. This study aims to develop fluid-structure interaction (FSI) models, which can model blood flow and wall/valve mechanics, using realistic patient-specific geometries and flow conditions which correlate with the true performance of the valve in the imaged patients, and to assess and compare such performances to understand the benefits and challenges with various bioprosthetic valves. FSI models combine computational fluid mechanics (CFD) with structural wall mechanics modelling. This is an alternative approach that allows detailed assessment of flow patterns and estimation of wall shear stress and pressure within blood vessels, and therefore has been applied increasingly to gain better insights into the hemodynamics in cardiovascular diseases

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTComputed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Sponsors

Edwards Lifesciences
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Imperial College London
CollaboratorOTHER
Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_ONLY
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Male and female patients aged 18 years or over. * Patients diagnosed with aortic valve disease, and scheduled to undergo Edwards Magna Ease or Intuity Elite and free of

Exclusion criteria

below. * The patient is willing and able to understand the Patient Information Sheet and provide written informed consent. * The patient must agree to comply with the study imaging protocol as required at prespecified times.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
blood flow velocities12 monthsBlood flow velocities (cm/s) will be quantified for each bioprosthesis at 3 levels: subvalvular (LVOT and native annulus), transvalvular, the aortic root, and the proximal ascending aorta. Velocities more than 20cm/s will be taken as abnormal.
Time average wall shear stress (TAWSS)12 monthsTAWSS will be quantified for each bioprosthesis at 3 levels: subvalvular (LVOT, the aortic root, and the proximal ascending aorta. TAWSS under 0.5Pa is taken as low, 0.51-2.0 as moderately increased, \>2.0 Pa as severely increased TAWSS.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient's satisfaction12 monthsA questionnaire will be designed to score valve-related clinical symptoms following the intervention.
Evidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)12 monthsEvidence of MACCE (Stroke and myocardial infarction in the first 12 months post procedure)
Mortality12 monthsEvidence of mortality during the 12 months post procedure.

Contacts

Primary ContactSaeed Mirsadraee, MD, Ph.D
s.mirsadraee@rbht.nhs.uk02073528121

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026