Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2026

Protocol for Relative Hydrodynamic Assessment of Tri-leaflet Polymer Valves
Published on: October 17, 2013
Criteria to select proper valve prosthesis for aortic valve replacement. Comparative assessment of various valve
1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Okayama University Medical School, Japan.
Insights
This study compared pressure gradients across four aortic valve prostheses. St. Jude Medical and Björk-Shiley valves showed better performance, while Lillehei-Kaster and Omniscience valves had higher gradients, necessitating careful patient follow-up.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Biomedical Engineering
- Clinical Cardiology
Background:
- Aortic valve prostheses are crucial for managing aortic valve disease.
- Different prosthetic valve designs may impact hemodynamic performance.
- Understanding pressure gradients is key to assessing valve function.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare pressure gradients (PG) across four types of aortic valve prostheses: St. Jude Medical (SJM), Björk-Shiley (B-S), Lillehei-Kaster (L-K), and Omniscience (O-S).
- To evaluate the relationship between valve area index (VAI) and PG for each prosthesis type.
- To identify optimal valve selection for specific patient body surface areas to maintain low pressure gradients.
Main Methods:
- Continuous wave Doppler echocardiography was employed to measure pressure gradients in 147 patients across four prosthetic valves.
- Cineradiography was used to determine disc-opening angles for the L-K and O-S valves.
- Statistical analysis, including correlation studies between VAI and PG, was performed.
Main Results:
- St. Jude Medical valves exhibited consistently low pressure gradients.
- A significant negative correlation between VAI and PG was observed for SJM and B-S valves.
- Lillehei-Kaster and Omniscience valves showed no significant VAI-PG correlation, with higher instances of elevated pressure gradients (>50 mmHg) due to suboptimal disc-opening angles.
Conclusions:
- St. Jude Medical and Björk-Shiley valves demonstrate favorable hemodynamic profiles, with specific sizes recommended for patients with body surface areas of 1.3-1.7 m2 to maintain PG below 20 mmHg.
- The suboptimal disc-opening angles of Lillehei-Kaster and Omniscience valves contribute to higher pressure gradients.
- Patients with L-K and O-S prostheses require vigilant monitoring due to the increased risk of significant pressure gradients.
Abstract:
Continuous wave Doppler echocardiography was used to measure pressure gradients (PG) across various aortic valve prostheses [St. Jude Medical (SJM) valve: 55 cases; Björk-Shiley (B-S) valve: 18 cases; Lillehei-Kaster (L-K) valve: 25 cases; and Omniscience (O-S) valve: 49 cases]. Disc-opening angles of the L-K and O-S valves were measured via cineradiography. Pressure gradient across the SJM valve tended to be low. Increase in pressure gradients during exercise tended to be greater in the small valves. There was a significant correlation between the valve area index (VAI) and pressure gradients in the SJM valve (PG = 85.3-40.2 x VAI, r = -0.71, p < 0.005) and in the B-S valve (PG = 64.6-23.3 x VAI, r = -0.89, p < 0.025). To keep pressure gradients below 20 mmHg, SJM valve #23 and B-S valve #25 should be selected for patients with a body surface area of 1.3-1.7 m2. In the L-K and O-S valves, there was no significant correlation between VAI and PG, likely because the disc-opening angles of these valves were suboptimal--averaging 57 degrees in the L-K valve and 47 degrees in the O-S valve. None of the patients with SJM or B-S valves had pressure gradients of 50 mmHg or above. However, pressure gradients exceeded 50 mmHg in 7 cases with the L-K valve (28%) and 10 with the O-S valve (20%), suggesting the necessity of careful follow-up in patients with these prostheses.
Related Concept Videos
Assessing Blood pressure using a doppler ultrasound
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Doppler Ultrasound Blood Pressure Assessment:
Preparation of Equipment:
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests

