Research Papers

Steady Flow Hemodynamic and Energy Loss Measurements in Normal and Simulated Calcified Tricuspid and Bicuspid Aortic Valves

[+] Author and Article Information
Clara Seaman

Department of Aerospace
and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, IN 46556

A. George Akingba

Department of Surgery
and Biomedical Engineering,
Indiana University School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, IN 46202

Philippe Sucosky

Department of Aerospace
and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Notre Dame,
143 Multidisciplinary Research Building,
Notre Dame, IN 46556-5637
e-mail: Philippe.Sucosky@nd.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING. Manuscript received February 18, 2013; final manuscript received January 14, 2014; accepted manuscript posted January 27, 2014; published online March 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Francis Loth.

J Biomech Eng 136(4), 041001 (Mar 24, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1087; doi: 10.1115/1.4026575 History: Received February 18, 2013; Revised January 14, 2014; Accepted January 27, 2014

The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), which forms with two leaflets instead of three as in the normal tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), is associated with a spectrum of secondary valvulopathies and aortopathies potentially triggered by hemodynamic abnormalities. While studies have demonstrated an intrinsic degree of stenosis and the existence of a skewed orifice jet in the BAV, the impact of those abnormalities on BAV hemodynamic performance and energy loss has not been examined. This steady-flow study presents the comparative in vitro assessment of the flow field and energy loss in a TAV and type-I BAV under normal and simulated calcified states. Particle-image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were performed to quantify velocity, vorticity, viscous, and Reynolds shear stress fields in normal and simulated calcified porcine TAV and BAV models at six flow rates spanning the systolic phase. The BAV model was created by suturing the two coronary leaflets of a porcine TAV. Calcification was simulated via deposition of glue beads in the base of the leaflets. Valvular performance was characterized in terms of geometric orifice area (GOA), pressure drop, effective orifice area (EOA), energy loss (EL), and energy loss index (ELI). The BAV generated an elliptical orifice and a jet skewed toward the noncoronary leaflet. In contrast, the TAV featured a circular orifice and a jet aligned along the valve long axis. While the BAV exhibited an intrinsic degree of stenosis (18% increase in maximum jet velocity and 7% decrease in EOA relative to the TAV at the maximum flow rate), it generated only a 3% increase in EL and its average ELI (2.10 cm2/m2) remained above the clinical threshold characterizing severe aortic stenosis. The presence of simulated calcific lesions normalized the alignment of the BAV jet and resulted in the loss of jet axisymmetry in the TAV. It also amplified the degree of stenosis in the TAV and BAV, as indicated by the 342% and 404% increase in EL, 70% and 51% reduction in ELI and 48% and 51% decrease in EOA, respectively, relative to the nontreated valve models at the maximum flow rate. This study indicates the ability of the BAV to function as a TAV despite its intrinsic degree of stenosis and suggests the weak dependence of pressure drop on orifice area in calcified valves.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Roberts, W. C., 1970, “The Congenitally Bicuspid Aortic Valve. A Study of 85 Autopsy Cases,” Am. J. Cardiol., 26(1), pp. 72–83. [CrossRef]
Sabet, H. Y., Edwards, W. D., Tazelaar, H. D., and Daly, R. C., 1999, “Congenitally Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Surgical Pathology Study of 542 Cases (1991–1996) and a Literature Review of 2715 Additional Cases,” Mayo Clin. Proc., 74(1), pp. 14–26. [CrossRef]
Beppu, S., Suzuki, S., Matsuda, H., Ohmori, F., Nagata, S., and Miyatake, K., 1993, “Rapidity of Progression of Aortic Stenosis in Patients With Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valves,” Am. J. Cardiol., 71(4), pp. 322–327. [CrossRef]
Braverman, A. C., 1996, “Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Associated Aortic Wall Abnormalities,” Curr. Opin. Cardiol., 11(5), pp. 501–503. [CrossRef]
Subramanian, R., Olson, L. J., and Edwards, W. D., 1984, “Surgical Pathology of Pure Aortic Stenosis: A Study of 374 Cases,” Mayo Clin. Proc., 59(10), pp. 683–690. [CrossRef]
Braverman, A. C., Guven, H., Beardslee, M. A., Makan, M., Kates, A. M., and Moon, M. R., 2005, “The Bicuspid Aortic Valve,” Curr. Probl. Cardiol., 30(9), pp. 470–522. [CrossRef]
Siu, S. C., and Silversides, C. K., 2010, “Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease,” J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 55(25), pp. 2789–2800. [CrossRef]
Robicsek, F., Thubrikar, M. J., Cook, J. W., and Fowler, B., 2004, “The Congenitally Bicuspid Aortic Valve: How Does it Function? Why Does it Fail?,” Ann. Thorac. Surg., 77(1), pp. 177–185. [CrossRef]
Fowles, R. E., Martin, R. P., Abrams, J. M., Schapira, J. N., French, J. W., and Popp, R. L., 1979, “Two-Dimensional Echocardiographic Features of Bicuspid Aortic Valve,” Chest, 75(4), pp. 434–440. [CrossRef]
Nanda, N. C., Gramiak, R., Manning, J., Mahoney, E. B., Lipchik, E. O., and DeWeese, J. A., 1974, “Echocardiographic Recognition of the Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve,” Circulation, 49(5), pp. 870–875. [CrossRef]
Barker, A. J., and Markl, M., 2011, “The Role of Hemodynamics in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease,” Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., 39(6), pp. 805–806. [CrossRef]
Hope, M. D., Meadows, A. K., Hope, T. A., Ordovas, K. G., Reddy, G. P., Alley, M. T., and Higgins, C. B., 2008, “Images in Cardiovascular Medicine. Evaluation of Bicuspid Aortic Valve and Aortic Coarctation With 4D Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” Circulation, 117(21), pp. 2818–2819. [CrossRef]
Hope, M. D., Hope, T. A., Meadows, A. K., Ordovas, K. G., Urbania, T. H., Alley, M. T., and Higgins, C. B., 2010, “Bicuspid Aortic Valve: Four-Dimensional MR Evaluation of Ascending Aortic Systolic Flow Patterns,” Radiology, 255(1), pp. 53–61. [CrossRef]
Jermihov, P. N., Jia, L., Sacks, M. S., Gorman, R. C., Gorman, J. H., and Chandran, K. B., 2011, “Effect of Geometry on the Leaflet Stresses in Simulated Models of Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valves,” Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol., 2(1), pp. 48–56. [CrossRef]
Weinberg, E. J., and Kaazempur Mofrad, M. R., 2008, “A Multiscale Computational Comparison of the Bicuspid and Tricuspid Aortic Valves in Relation to Calcific Aortic Stenosis,” J. Biomech., 41(16), pp. 3482–3487. [CrossRef]
Chandra, S., Rajamannan, N. M., and Sucosky, P., 2012, “Computational Assessment of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Wall-Shear Stress: Implications for Calcific Aortic Valve Disease,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 11(7), pp. 1085–1096. [CrossRef]
Yap, C. H., Saikrishnan, N., Tamilselvan, G., Vasilyev, N., Yoganathan, A. P., and Vasiliyev, N. V., 2012, “The Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve can Experience High Frequency Unsteady Shear Stresses on Its Leaflet Surface,” Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 303(6), pp. H721–H731. [CrossRef]
Saikrishnan, N., Yap, C.-H., Milligan, N. C., Vasilyev, N. V., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2012, “In vitro Characterization of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Hemodynamics Using Particle Image Velocimetry,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 40(8), pp. 1760–1775. [CrossRef]
Sucosky, P., Balachandran, K., Elhammali, A., Jo, H., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2009, “Altered Shear Stress Stimulates Upregulation of Endothelial VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 in a BMP-4- and TGF-Beta1-Dependent Pathway,” Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., 29(2), pp. 254–260. [CrossRef]
Hoehn, D., Sun, L., and Sucosky, P., 2010, “Role of Pathologic Shear Stress Alterations in Aortic Valve Endothelial Activation,” Cardiovasc. Eng. Technol., 1(2), pp. 165–178. [CrossRef]
Sun, L., Chandra, S., and Sucosky, P., 2012, “Ex Vivo Evidence for the Contribution of Hemodynamic Shear Stress Abnormalities to the Early Pathogenesis of Calcific Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease,” PLoS One, 7(10), p. e48843. [CrossRef]
Girdauskas, E., Disha, K., Borger, M.-A., and Kuntze, T., “Relation of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology to the Dilatation Pattern of the Proximal Aorta: Focus on the Transvalvular Flow,” Cardiol. Res. Pract., 2012, p. 478259.
Garcia, D., Dumesnil, J. G., Durand, L.-G., Kadem, L., and Pibarot, P., 2003, “Discrepancies Between Catheter and Doppler Estimates of Valve Effective Orifice Area can be Predicted From the Pressure Recovery Phenomenon: Practical Implications With Regard to Quantification of Aortic Stenosis Severity,” J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 41(3), pp. 435–442. [CrossRef]
Bonow, R. O., Carabello, B. A., Chatterjee, K., de Leon, A. C., Faxon, D. P., Freed, M. D., Gaasch, W. H., Lytle, B. W., Nishimura, R. A., O'Gara, P. T., O'Rourke, R. A., Otto, C. M., Shah, P. M., and Shanewise, J. S., 2008, “2008 Focused Update Incorporated Into the ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease,” J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 52(13), pp. e1–e142. [CrossRef]
Skjaerpe, T., Hegrenaes, L., and Hatle, L., 1985, “Noninvasive Estimation of Valve Area in Patients With Aortic Stenosis by Doppler Ultrasound and Two-Dimensional Echocardiography,” Circulation, 72(4), pp. 810–818. [CrossRef]
Dumesnil, J. G., Honos, G. N., Lemieux, M., and Beauchemin, J., 1990, “Validation and Applications of Indexed Aortic Prosthetic Valve Areas Calculated by Doppler Echocardiography,” J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 16(3), pp. 637–643. [CrossRef]
Yoganathan, A. P., He, Z., and Casey Jones, S., 2004, “Fluid Mechanics of Heart Valves,” Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 6, pp. 331–362. [CrossRef]
Gjertsson, P., Caidahl, K., Svensson, G., Wallentin, I., and Bech-Hanssen, O., 2001, “Important Pressure Recovery in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and High Doppler Gradients,” Am. J. Cardiol., 88(2), pp. 139–144. [CrossRef]
Tasca, G., Mhagna, Z., Perotti, S., Centurini, P. B., Sabatini, T., Amaducci, A., Brunelli, F., Cirillo, M., Dalla Tomba, M., Quaini, E., Troise, G., and Pibarot, P., 2006, “Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis,” Circulation, 113(4), pp. 570–576. [CrossRef]
Garcia, D., Pibarot, P., Dumesnil, J. G., Sakr, F., and Durand, L. G., 2000, “Assessment of Aortic Valve Stenosis Severity: A New Index Based on the Energy Loss Concept,” Circulation, 101(7), pp. 765–771. [CrossRef]
Yap, C.-H., Dasi, L. P., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2010, “Dynamic Hemodynamic Energy Loss in Normal and Stenosed Aortic Valves.,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 132(2), p. 021005. [CrossRef]
Schaefer, B. M., Lewin, M. B., Stout, K. K., Gill, E., Prueitt, A., Byers, P. H., and Otto, C. M., 2008, “The Bicuspid Aortic Valve: An Integrated Phenotypic Classification of Leaflet Morphology and Aortic Root Shape,” Heart, 94(12), pp. 1634–1638. [CrossRef]
Sievers, H.-H., and Schmidtke, C., 2007, “A Classification System for the Bicuspid Aortic Valve From 304 Surgical Specimens,” J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 133(5), pp. 1226–1233. [CrossRef]
Yap, C. H., Saikrishnan, N., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2011, “Experimental Measurement of Dynamic Fluid Shear Stress on the Ventricular Surface of the Aortic Valve Leaflet,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 11(1–2), pp. 231–244. [CrossRef]
Otto, C. M., Kuusisto, J., and Reichenbach, D. D., 1994, “Characterization of the Early Lesion of “Degenerative” Valvular Aortic Stenosis. Histological and Immunohistochemical Studies,” Circulation, 90(2), pp. 844–853. [CrossRef]
Willmann, J. K., Weishaupt, D., Lachat, M., Kobza, R., Roos, J. E., Seifert, B., Lüscher, T. F., Marincek, B., and Hilfiker, P. R., 2002, “Electrocardiographically Gated Multi-Detector Row CT for Assessment of Valvular Morphology and Calcification in Aortic Stenosis,” Radiology, 225(1), pp. 120–128. [CrossRef]
Freeman, R.V, and Otto, C. M., 2005, “Spectrum of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: Pathogenesis, Disease Progression, and Treatment Strategies,” Circulation, 111(24), pp. 3316–3326. [CrossRef]
Chen, J., Manning, M., Frazier, A., Jeudy, J., and White, C., 2009, “CT Angiography of the Cardiac Valves: Normal, Diseased, and Postoperative Appearances,” Radiographics, 29(5), pp. 1393–1412. [CrossRef]
Angelini, A., Ho, S. Y., Anderson, R. H., Devine, W. A., Zuberbuhler, J. R., Becker, A. E., and Davies, M. J., 1989, “The Morphology of the Normal Aortic Valve as Compared With the Aortic Valve Having Two Leaflets,” J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 98(3), pp. 362–367.
Swanson, W. M., and Clark, R. E., 1974, “Dimensions and Geometric Relationships of the Human Aortic Value as a Function of Pressure,” Circulation, 35(6), pp. 871–882. [CrossRef]
Leo, H. L., 2005, “An In Vitro Investigation of the Flow Fields Through Bileaflet and Polymeric Prosthetic Heart Valves,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dasi, L. P., Ge, L., Simon, H. A., Sotiropoulos, F., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2007, “Vorticity Dynamics of a Bileaflet Mechanical Heart Valve in an Axisymmetric Aorta,” Phys. Fluids, 19(6), p. 67105. [CrossRef]
Lim, W. L., Chew, Y. T., Chew, T. C., and Low, H. T., 2001, “Pulsatile Flow Studies of a Porcine Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve In Vitro: PIV Measurements and Shear-Induced Blood Damage,” J. Biomech., 34(11), pp. 1417–1427. [CrossRef]
Gorlin, R., and Gorlin, S., 1951, “Hydraulic Formula for Calculation of the Area of the Stenotic Mitral Valve, Other Cardiac Valves, and Central Circulatory Shunts,” Am. Heart J., 41(1), pp. 1–29. [CrossRef]
Chandran, K., Ritgers, S., and Yoganathan, A., 2012, Cardiac Valve Stenoses, Biofluid Mechanics: The Human Circulation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 159–164.
Sacco, J. J., Botten, J., Macbeth, F., Bagust, A., and Clark, P., 2010, “The Average Body Surface Area of Adult Cancer Patients in the UK: A Multicentre Retrospective Study,” PLoS One, 5(1), p. e8933. [CrossRef]
Balachandran, K., Sucosky, P., and Yoganathan, A. P., “Hemodynamics and Mechanobiology of Aortic Valve Inflammation and Calcification,” Int. J. Inflam., 2011, p. 263870.
Ge, L., Dasi, L. P., Sotiropoulos, F., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2008, “Characterization of Hemodynamic Forces Induced by Mechanical Heart Valves: Reynolds vs. Viscous Stresses,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 36(2), pp. 276–297. [CrossRef]
Bonow, R. O., Carabello, B. A., Chatterjee, K., de Leon, A. C., Faxon, D. P., Freed, M. D., Gaasch, W. H., Lytle, B. W., Nishimura, R. A., O'Gara, P. T., O'Rourke, R. A., Otto, C. M., Shah, P. M., Shanewise, J. S., Smith, S. C.Jr., Jacobs, A. K., Adams, C. D., Anderson, J. L., Antman, E. M., Fuster, V., Halperin, J. L., Hiratzka, L. F., Hunt, S. A., Nishimura, R., Page, R. L., and Riegel, B., 2006, “ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Manage,” Circulation, 114(5), pp. e84–e231. [CrossRef]
Weston, M. W., LaBorde, D. V., and Yoganathan, A. P., 1999, “Estimation of the Shear Stress on the Surface of an Aortic Valve Leaflet,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 27(4), pp. 572–579. [CrossRef]
Barker, A. J., Markl, M., Bürk, J., Lorenz, R., Bock, J., Bauer, S., Schulz-Menger, J., and von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, F., 2012, “Bicuspid Aortic Valve is Associated With Altered Wall Shear Stress in the Ascending Aorta,” Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging, 5(4), pp. 457–466. [CrossRef]
Meierhofer, C., Schneider, E. P., Lyko, C., Hutter, A., Martinoff, S., Markl, M., Hager, A., Hess, J., Stern, H., and Fratz, S., 2012, “Wall Shear Stress and Flow Patterns in the Ascending Aorta in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves Differ Significantly From Tricuspid Aortic Valves: A Prospective Study,” Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging, 14(8), pp. 797–804. [CrossRef]
Cengel, Y., and Cimbala, J., 2006, “Obstruction Flowmeters: Orifice, Venturi, and Nozzle Meters,” Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 382–383.
Miller, R. W., 1983, Flow Measurement Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Heinrich, R. S., Fontaine, A. A., Grimes, R. Y., Sidhaye, A., Yang, S., Moore, K. E., Levine, R. A., and Yoganathan, A. P., “Experimental Analysis of Fluid Mechanical Energy Losses in Aortic Valve Stenosis: Importance of Pressure Recovery,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 24(6), pp. 685–694. [CrossRef]
Baumgartner, H., Khan, S., DeRobertis, M., Czer, L., and Maurer, G., 1990, “Discrepancies Between Doppler and Catheter Gradients in Aortic Prosthetic Valves in vitro. A Manifestation of Localized Gradients and Pressure Recovery,” Circulation, 82(4), pp. 1467–1475. [CrossRef]
Ge, L., Leo, H.-L., Sotiropoulos, F., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2005, “Flow in a Mechanical Bileaflet Heart Valve at Laminar and Near-Peak Systole Flow Rates: CFD Simulations and Experiments,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 127(5), pp. 782–797. [CrossRef]
Leo, H. L., Dasi, L. P., Carberry, J., Simon, H. A., and Yoganathan, A. P., 2006, “Fluid Dynamic Assessment of Three Polymeric Heart Valves Using Particle Image Velocimetry,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 34(6), pp. 936–952. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Porcine valve models: normal TAV (a), type-I BAV (b), calcified TAV (c), and calcified type-I BAV (d)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Placement and characterization of glue-simulated calcific lesions on the leaflets: idealized leaflet representation and geometric parameters (a) and glue beads deposited on an actual leaflet (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental setup: valve chamber (a) (arrow indicates flow direction), cross-sectional view of the sinus region (b), valve mount (c), and schematic of the PIV flow loop (d) (arrows indicate flow direction; x: axial direction; y: transverse direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Velocity field characteristics: Ensemble-averaged velocity contour and vector fields captured in the TAV, BAV, CTAV, and CTAV models at six flow rates (a) (x: axial direction; y: transverse direction; inset: camera position and field of view) and average orifice jet skewness in the four valve models at six flow rates (b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Ensemble-averaged vorticity ((a); red and blue regions corresponding to counter-clockwise and clockwise rotation, respectively), viscous shear stress (b) and Reynolds shear stress (c) fields captured in the TAV, BAV, CTAV, and CTAV models at a flow rate of 20 L/min (Re = 3946; x: axial direction; y: transverse direction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Valvular orifice characterization: typical orifice image captured by camera 2 in the TAV (a), BAV (b), CTAV (c), and CBAV (d) models at a flow rate of 20 L/min, comparison of the GOA measured in the four valve models at six flow rates (e) and valvular eccentricity expressed as a percentage of the aortic root diameter in the four valve models at six flow rates (f) (results reported as mean ± standard error; *p < 0.05 versus TAV; #p < 0.05 versus BAV;∼p < 0.05 versus CTAV; + : p < 0.05 versus CBAV; n = 10)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the pressure drop (ΔP) on flow rate for the four valve models (results reported as mean ± standard error; *: p < 0.05; n = 4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the ELI measured in the four valve models at six flow rates (results reported as mean ± standard error; *: p < 0.05; n = 4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Dependence of EL on EOA at six flow rates, for the four valve models (results reported as mean ± standard error; n = 4)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In