throbber
Laboratory assessment of the design, function,
`and durability of pericardial bioprostheses
`
`J FISHER, I J REECE, G R JACK, L CATHCART, D J WHEATLEY
`Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Glasgow
`
`The design, function, and durability of four pericardial bioprostheses have been studied in the laboratory.
`Variations in design and construction affected both the pressure difference across the valves and the leaflet
`dynamics. In the durability tests tissue failure was found in all valves, with tears at the edge of the leaflets caused
`by abrasion on the cloth-covered inner frames. In the lonescu-Shiley standard valves, tears were also detected
`at the coaption sutures. These results have been compared with failure modes in explanted clinical valves.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Ionescu-Shiley (ISU) pericardial bioprosthesis has
`been used clinically for over 13 years with good clinical
`follow-up results (Ionescu et al., 1982). However, concern
`exists over the incidence of primary tissue failure report-
`ed clinically in these valves (Gabbay, et al., 1984a; Brais
`et al., 1985; Gallo et al., 1985). Tears have been found in
`leaflets of explanted valves close to the edge of the cloth-
`covered frames which have caused leaflet prolapse and
`regurgitation. Several different reasons have been sug-
`gested for tissue failure in ISU pericardial valves; abra-
`sion of the leaflets on the cloth-covered inner frame
`(Gabbay et al., 1984b); abrasion of the leaflet on the cloth
`buttress on the outside of the post (Martin et al., 1980);
`stress concentrations around the coaption stitches inside
`the top of the posts (Rainer, 1985); and bending and
`flexion stresses close to the edge of the support frame
`(Thubrikar et al., 1982; Ionescu et al., 1981). More
`recently, three new low profile pericardial bioprostheses,
`the Ionescu-Shiley Low Profile (ISLP), Hancock Peri-
`cardial (HP) and Mitral Medical (MM) valves have
`become available for clinical use in the United Kingdom.
`Our early clinical experience in Glasgow with two of
`these valves (ISLP and HP) has shown that primary
`tissue failure has not been eliminated in these new valve
`designs (Reece et al., 1986).
`In this study we have investigated the design, con-
`struction, function, and durability of four different peri-
`cardial valves (ISU, ISLP, HP, MM). The leaflet
`geometries and valve design have been analysed for the
`size 29 mm mitral valves, and the function of both size
`29 mm mitral and size 23 mm aortic valves has been
`assessed in our pulsatile flow test apparatus. Durability
`studies have also been carried out on size 29 mm valves.
`The results of these studies have given a clearer under-
`standing of the mechanisms of primary tissue failures
`found in explanted clinical valves.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`
`Description of the valves
`The key dimensions of the valves are given in Table 1.
`The external diameter is the diameter of the cloth-
`covered frames and leaflets, but excludes the flexible
`sewing ring, and the internal diameter defines the poten-
`tial orifice for forward flow. The leaflet height, h, defines
`the height of the flexing portion of the leaflet and h, the
`maximum depth of coaption between
`the closed
`unloaded leaflets.
`0 MEP Ltd 1987 Vol. 16, No. 2
`
`0046-2039/87/0004-0105 $02.00
`
`105
`
`Although the fundamental construction of all four
`valves is similar, with the leaflets sewn onto the outside
`of cloth-covered frames, there are significant differences
`in the detailed design and construction of these valves. In
`the ISU and ISLP valves the pericardial tissue appears
`to be initially fixed with glutaraldehyde in its natural
`shape and then mounted on the valve frame, while in the
`H P valve fresh tissue is mounted on the frame and fixed
`with glutaraldehyde under a small back pressure which
`defines the geometry of the unloaded closed leaflets. In
`the MM valve the leaflets are individually fixed on
`moulds which determine the shape of the unloaded
`flexing portion of the leaflet. The geometries of the
`frames and leaflets also differ (Table 1). The size 29 mm
`ISU and ISLP valves have an unloaded closed geometry
`defined by a cylindrical surface with radius R , , approx-
`imately 20 mm. This corresponds to a broad ‘U shape
`cut out in the base of the frame and a parallel portion at
`the top of each post which gives a slightly greater coap-
`tion depth, h,, between the leaflets. The height of the
`leaflets is reduced by 1 mm in the ISLP valve. The leaf-
`lets of the MM and H P valves are formed in approx-
`imately spherical shapes during fixation with a radius of
`curvature, R, approximately 15 mm. The overall leaflet
`height, h, is less; the posts have only a short parallel
`portion at the top and the coaption between the
`unloaded leaflets is less than in the ISU and ISLP valves.
`In all the valves the leaflets are sutured to the outside of
`the cloth-covered frames around the base of the valves
`and at the back of the posts. In addition, sutures are
`placed through the leaflets close to the top of the posts to
`ensure closure of the leaflets around the posts. In the ISU
`
`Table 1. Key dimensions in mm for the size 29 and
`size 23 mm valves
`ISU
`29
`31/30
`25
`20
`16
`4
`ISU
`23
`28/25
`19.5
`18.5
`
`Valve
`size
`
`Outside diameter, Do
`Internal diameter, Di
`Overall height, H
`Leaflet height, h
`Coavtion devth. h.
`Valve size
`
`Outside diameter, Do
`Internal diameter, Di
`Overall height, H
`
`ISLP HP MM
`29
`29
`29
`31/30
`29
`29
`24.5
`24
`24.5
`19
`17
`16.5
`15
`12.5
`12.5
`2.5
`2.5
`3
`ISLP HP MM
`23
`23
`23
`24
`22.5
`26/25
`19.5
`20
`19
`17
`15
`16
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2021, Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`valves the coaption sutures are placed inside the posts
`while in the ISLP valves two sutures are placed through
`the leaflets and the side of the posts. In the HP valve
`sutures are placed through the leaflets above the posts
`and also through the side of the posts, while in the MM
`valve the suture is placed over and at the outside of the
`post so it is less effective in closing the leaflets together.
`The frames in the ISLP, HP, and MM valve are manu-
`factured from flexible polymers, while in the ISU it is
`manufactured from rigid titanium.
`
`Function tests
`Our pulsatile flow test apparatus has been described pre-
`viously (Fisher et al., 1986). Pressure difference and
`regurgitant volumes were measured for one size 29 mm
`and one size 23 mm valve of each type under a range of
`flow conditions A to E corresponding to cardiac outputs
`of 3-8.5 1 min-'. Leaflet dynamics were studied in the
`size 29 mm mitral valves under steady and pulsatile
`flows and movements recorded on video camera at
`20 mS intervals and with synchronised flash photogra-
`phy at 5 mS intervals.
`
`Durability tests
`One ISU, four ISLP, three H P and two MM valves, all
`size 29 mm were cycled in Rowan Ash accelerated
`fatigue testers at 12 Hz with a closed back pressure of
`between 100 and 130 mm Hg and peak forward flow of
`between 330 and 450 ml s-'. Valves were tested to
`failure, defined as a tear of at least 2-3 mm in one leaflet.
`
`Clinical experience
`Over the past four years 105 ISLP and 98 H P valves
`have been implanted in Glasgow with a mean follow-up
`time of 39 months per patient and 26 months per patient
`in each series. Primary tissue failure has occurred in six
`explanted ISLP valves and two explanted H P valves. In
`all cases the tears occurred in the leaflets close to the top
`of the cloth-covered posts causing leaflet prolapse and
`large regurgitation. A similar failure mode has been
`found in one explanted IS valve. The regurgitation in
`three of these explanted valves was measured in the pulse
`duplicator.
`
`RESULTS
`Measurements of mean pressure difference plotted
`against RMS forward flow are given in Fig. 1 for the size
`29 mm valves and in Fig. 2 for the size 23 mm valves. In
`all cases the orifice area of the open valve was deter-
`mined by the opening of the free edges of the leaflets.
`This opening was widest in the MM 29 mm valve which
`had the lowest pressure difference and smallest in the
`ISU 29 mm valve which had the highest pressure gra-
`dient. The opening of the free edges of the leaflets was
`dependent on the position of the coaption stitches at the
`top of the posts. The size 23 mm MM and H P valves had
`lower pressure drops than the size 23 mm ISLP and IS
`valves. The regurgitant volumes are given in Fig. 3 for
`the size 29 mm valves and Fig. 4 for the size 23 mm
`valves. There was little difference in the regurgitation
`between the different valves. The closing volumes in the
`size 29 mm valves were larger than in the size 23 mm as
`the volume swept back by the leaflets was greater. The
`closed regurgitation occurred through the cloth sewing
`ring on the outside of the valve frame and was greater in
`
`106
`
`0.8
`
`0
`-c
`3.4
`
`1
`
`/. - 1 2
`
`ISLP 29
`
`ISU29
`
`lo-
`
`/ 1:
`
`Y 4
`VI
`
`0,
`c 8 2
`
`E
`
`J*
`
`./*
`
`2-
`
`- 0 8
`
`/' -0 4
`1.
`*.P
`
`m
`P *
`
`0
`
`160
`
`260 360 460 560
`
`o-
`
`360
`
`460
`
`560
`
`i
`
`1.
`
`i
`
`l
`
`
`
`-
`
`Fig. 2. Mean pressure diflerence plotted against rms .forward
`flow for the size 23 mm valves
`
`closed
`D closing
`
`MM 29
`ISU 29
`I S L P 2 9
`HP 29
`Fig. 3. Regurgitant volumes for the size 29 mm valves
`Engineering in Medicine 0 MEP Ltd 1987
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2021, Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`-
`
`closed
`closing
`
`z 1
`e -
`
`c
`I ?
`m ?
`
`HP 23
`ISU 23
`ISLP23
`MM 23
`Fig. 4. Regurgitant volumes for the size 23 mm valves
`
`the size 23 mm valves due to the longer diastolic time
`interval in the aortic position and a different type sewing
`ring.
`Studies of the leaflet dynamics in the size 29 mm valves
`showed that the free edge symmetrical orifice in the ISU
`and H P valves due to the restricted opening and tension
`induced in the tissue by the coaption stitches, whereas in
`the ISLP and MM valves the tissue at the free edge was
`under less tension and the orifice was not as uniform. In
`the open position the leaflets of the IS and ISLP formed
`a straight line at the edge of the frame, while in the H P
`and M M valves the tissue which was formed in a small
`radius over the edge of the frame during fixation formed
`an 'S' configuration when the leaflets were fully open
`(Fig. 5). In the closed position the posts of the flexible
`frames deflected inwards reducing the tension at the free
`edge of the leaflets. At low steady flows the ISLP and
`ISU valves opened fully at 40 ml s-', the H P valve at
`80 ml and the MM valve at 120 ml s-'. All valve leaflets
`opened at the lowest pulsatile flow (A) corresponding to
`a peak flow of 150 ml s-'. The methods of fixation also
`affected the way the valve leaflets transposed from the
`closed to the open position. In the ISU and ISLP valves
`the tissue buckled circumferentially across the leaflets,
`while in the H P and MM valves the tissue reversed its
`curvature in the base of the leaflet, first buckling in the
`radial direction. Closure was the reverse of opening in
`each valve.
`All but one of the valves failed prematurely after less
`than 60 million cycles with tears in the leaflets at the edge
`
`Leaflet
`
`.Leaf let
`
`-Ste mnt
`
`,Stent
`
`H P
`ISU
`MM
`ISLP
`Fig. 5. A vertical section through the base of the leaflets at the
`edge of
`the open
`the frames showing the geometry of
`leaflets
`0 MEP Ltd 1987 Vol. 16, No. 2
`
`Fig. 6. Results of the accelerated fatigue tests
`
`of the cloth-covered frames (Fig. 6). The other valve
`failed after 320 million cycles in a similar manner. All the
`leaflets of the failed valves showed excessive thinning and
`abrasion adjacent to the edge of the cloth-covered
`frames. This was greatest about half way up the posts at
`the shoulder of the scallop which was the origin of the
`tears in most of the valves. In some valves these tears
`extended to the free edge of the leaflet. In one ISLP and
`one H P valve the tears started closer to the top of the
`posts. In all the HP, ISLP, and MM valves the tissue was
`intact and in good condition around the coaption
`sutures at the top of the posts. In the IS valve small tears
`occurred in two leaflets at the coaption sutures, although
`the largest tear originated from half way up the post
`
`Fig. 7. Failed ISU valve from the fatigue tests
`
`107
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2021, Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Fig. 8. A failed ISLP valve from the fatigue tests
`
`(Fig. 7). Figures 8-10 show examples of the failed ISLP,
`HP, and MM valves.
`Figure 11 shows an example of an explanted ISLP
`valve with torn leaflet, and Fig. 12 shows a failed
`explanted HP valve. In both cases the tears in the leaflets
`occurred at the top of the posts. It was difficult to deter-
`mine whether the tears originated from the edge of the
`cloth-covered post or from the coaption sutures passing
`through the side of the posts. Abrasion of the leaflets
`adjacent to the frame was much less than in the valves
`cycled in the fatigue tester and the leaflets were rein-
`forced with host tissue ingrowth over these areas. Tissue
`ingrowth was less towards the top of the posts. An
`explanted ISU valve with a torn leaflet is shown in
`Fig. 13. Tears appeared both at the top of the posts and
`at the shoulder of the scallop, and a small tear was seen
`at the coaption stitch in one of the other leaflets. The
`regurgitation measured in three explanted valves with
`torn leaflets was between 40 and 60 per cent.
`
`Fig. 10. A failed M M valve from the,fatigue tests
`
`DISCUSSION
`Although we have shown significant differences in the
`design and construction of the four pericardial valves
`studied, there was little variation in measurements of
`pressure drop and regurgitation between the valves. The
`coaption sutures at the top of the posts did restrict the
`opening of the valve leaflets particularly in the ISU valve
`which had the largest pressure difference of the size
`29 mm valves. The different design and methods of con-
`struction had a greater effect on the leaflet dynamics.
`Both the closed and open position of the leaflets, the
`movements between the two positions, and the bending
`stresses at the edge of the open leaflets were affected by
`the leaflet geometries and methods of tissue fixation. In
`addition, the positioning of the coaption suture affected
`the tension in the free edge of the open leaflet and the
`flexibility of the frames affected the tension in the closed
`leaflet. These different leaflet dynamics, however, did not
`affect the results of our durability tests.
`
`Fig. 9. A failed H P valve from the fatigue tests
`
`108
`
`Fig. 11. An explanted ISLP valve with a torn leaflet
`Engineering in Medicine $1 MEP Ltd 1987
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2021, Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`All the valves in the fatigue tests failed due to abrasion
`and thinning of the leaflets as they were stretched over
`the edge of the cloth-covered frames in the closed posi-
`tion. The abrasion was greatest half way up the posts and
`this was the origin of the tears in most of the valves. Only
`in the ISU valve where the coaption stitch was placed
`inside the post did the tears originate at the coaption
`stitches. The accelerated fatigue tests can be considered
`artificially harsh for the pericardial valves with cloth-
`covered frames as biological effects such as tissue
`ingrowth and blood deposits on the cloth, which reduce
`the abrasion in vivo, are not simulated in the tests.
`Explanted clinical valves showed similar tears to the
`fatigue tested valves but the tears were usually closer to
`the top of the posts where the tissue ingrowth was not as
`great. It is likely that abrasion of the leaflets on the cloth-
`covered posts also caused the tears clinically in the ISLP
`and HP valves. Tears were only clearly detected at the
`coaption stitches in the explanted ISU valve, which cor-
`relates with the fatigue test findings. However, the coap-
`tion sutures could weaken the leaflets at the top of the
`posts in the ISLP and H P valves as they are positioned
`close to an area that is being thinned by abrasion. This
`area is also under high bending stresses in the open posi-
`tion.
`Only after the abrasion to the leaflet at the edge of the
`frame has been eliminated can the effect of the different
`leaflet dynamics on valve durability be assessed.
`
`REFERENCES
`Brais, M. P. et al. (1985) Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft follow-up
`of up to six years, Ann. Thorac. Surg., 39,105-1 11.
`Fisher, J. et al. (1986) Design of a function test apparatus for prosthetic
`heart valves. Initial results in the mitral position, Clin. Phys. Physiol.
`Meas, 6,63-73.
`Gabbay, S. et al. (1984a) Longterm follow-up of the Ionescu-Shiley
`mitral pericardial xenograft, J . Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 88,758-763.
`Gabbay, S. et al. (1984b) Fatigue induced failure of the Ionescu-Shiley
`pericardial xenograft in the mitral position, J . Thorac. Cardiooasc.
`Surg., 87,836-844.
`Gallo, 1. et al. (1985) Incidence of primary tissue failure with the Ion-
`escu-Shiley pericardial valve, J . Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 90,278-280.
`Ionescu, M. I. et al. (1981) Low profile prosthetic heart valve, European
`Patent Application 813051 12224.
`Ionescu, M. I. et al. (1982) Clinical experience of the pericardial xeno-
`graft, 11 years experience, in Cardiac Bioprostheses, (Edited by Cohn, L.
`H. and Gallucci, V.) Yorke Medical Books, New York, pp. 42-60.
`Martin, T. R. P. et al. (1980) Accelerated fatigue tests on biological
`tissue valves, Proc. ESAO, 7,315-318.
`Rainer, W. G. (1985) Discussion of in vivo haemodynamic comparison
`of porcine and pericardial valves, J . Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., 89,
`358-368.
`Reece, I. J. et al. (1986) A comparison of experience with the Hancock
`and Ionescu-Shiley low profile pericardial bioprosthesis, 2. Kardiol.,
`75 (SUPPI.), 232-236.
`Thubrikar, M. J. et at. (1982) Design and stress analysis of bioprosthetic
`valves in vivo, in Cardiac Bioprostheses, (Edited by Cohn, L. H. and
`Gallucci, V.) Yorke Medical Books, New York, pp. 445-455.
`
`Fig. 12. An explanted H P valve with a torn leaflet
`
`Fig. 13. An explanted ISU valve with a torn leaflet
`
`0 MEP Ltd 1987 Vol. 16, No. 2
`
`109
`
`Colibri Heart Valve LLC, Exhibit 2021, Page 5 of 5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket