In silico approaches for transcatheter aortic valve replacement inspection

References

• Sattar Y, Rauf H, Bareeqa SB, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a review of aortic stenosis management. Cureus. 2019;11:e6431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002;106:3006–3008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mas-Peiro S, Fichtlscherer S, Walther C, et al. Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:1665–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alperi Garcia A, Muntané-Carol G, Junquera L, et al. Can we reduce conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve replacement? Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17:309–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Généreux P, Head SJ, Hahn R, et al. Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1125–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nappi F, Nenna A, Sing SSA, et al. Are the dynamic changes of the aortic root determinant for thrombosis or leaflet degeneration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:2919–2925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trimaille A, Marchandot B, Park SH, et al. The difficult balance between thrombosis and bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A translational review. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;113:263–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammar A, Elbatran AI, Wijesuriya N, et al. Management of atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: challenges and therapeutic considerations. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Jun 27;S1050–1738(20)30086-4 (the paper is still in press).
   Google Scholar
• Jabbour RJ, Mikhail GW. Valve durability – is this the Achilles’ heel of TAVI? EuroIntervention. 2019;14:e1544–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price J, Bob-Manuel T, Aymond J, et al. Low risk TAVR: long- term considerations and appropriate patient selection. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020;63:377–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruno AG, Santona L, Palmerini T, et al. Predicting and improving outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults and the elderly. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2020;18:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand V, Mankad SV, Eleid M. What is new in low gradient aortic stenosis: surgery, TAVR, or medical therapy? Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22:78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randall MH, Bavry AA. Update on Transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Cardiol Ther. 2020;9:75–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrest JK, Kaple RK, Ramlawi B, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves from the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:1749–1759.
   Google Scholar
• Nappi F, Nenna A, Timofeeva I, et al. Mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:2926–2935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raschpichler MC, Woitek F, Chakravarty T, et al. Valve‐in‐valve for degenerated transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus valve‐in‐valve for degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses: a 3‐center comparison of hemodynamic and 1‐year outcome. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e013973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotman OM, Bianchi M, Ghosh RP, et al. Principles of TAVR valve design, modelling, and testing. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15:771–791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei ZA, Sonntag SJ, Toma M, et al. Computational fluid dynamics assessment associated with transcatheter heart valve prostheses: a position paper of the ISO working group. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018;9:289–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosi GM, Capelli C, Cheang MH, et al. Population-specific material properties of the implantation site for transcatheter aortic valve replacement finite element simulations. J Biomech. 2018;71:236–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosi GM, Capelli C, Cheang MH, et al. A validated computational framework to predict outcomes in TAVI. Sci Rep. 2020;10:9906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao W, Wang Q, Kodali S, et al. Numerical parametric study of paravalvular leak following a transcatheter aortic valve deployment into a patient-specific aortic root. J Biomech Eng. 2018;140:1010071–10100711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi M, Marom G, Ghosh RP, et al. Patient-specific simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of deployment options on paravalvular leakage. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2019;18:435–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh RP, Marom G, Bianchi M, et al. Numerical evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve performance during heart beating and its post-deployment fluid–structure interaction analysis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2020;19:1725–1740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, Migliavacca F, García-González A, et al. On the modeling of patient-specific transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a fluid–structure interaction approach. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2019;10:437–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, Matas JFR, Beretta M, et al. The impact of calcification patterns in transcatheter aortic valve performance: a fluid-structure interaction analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. In Press;2020:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Basri AA, Zuber M, Basri EI, et al. Fluid structure interaction on paravalvular leakage of transcatheter aortic valve implantation related to aortic stenosis: a patient-specific case. Comput Math Methods Med. 2020;2020:9163085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocatello G, El Faquir N, De Santis G, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation to elucidate the role of contact pressure in the development of new conduction abnormalities after catheter-based implantation of a self-expanding aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e005344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocatello G, El Faquir N, de Backer O, et al. The impact of size and position of a mechanical expandable transcatheter aortic valve: novel insights through computational modelling and simulation. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2019;12:435–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocatello G, De Santis G, De Bock S, et al. Optimization of a transcatheter heart valve frame using patient-specific computer simulation. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2019;10:456–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGee OM, Gunning PS, McNamara A, et al. The impact of implantation depth of the LotusTM valve on mechanical stress in close proximity to the bundle of His. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2019;18:79–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirois E, Mao W, Li K, et al. Simulated transcatheter aortic valve flow: implications of elliptical deployment and under-expansion at the aortic annulus. Artif Organs. 2018;42:E141–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh RP, Marom G, Rotman OM, et al. Comparative Fluid–structure interaction analysis of polymeric transcatheter and surgical aortic valves’ hemodynamics and structural mechanics. J Biomech Eng. 2018;140:121002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandail HS, Trivedi SD, Shaikh AC, et al. Impact of annular and supra-annular CoreValve deployment locations on aortic and coronary artery hemodynamics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;86:131–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wald S, Liberzon A, Avrahami I. A numerical study of the hemodynamic effect of the aortic valve on coronary flow. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018;17:319–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heitkemper M, Hatoum H, Azimian A, et al. Modeling risk of coronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159:829–838.e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nappi F, Mazzocchi L, Timofeva I, et al. A finite element analysis study from 3D CT to predict transcatheter heart valve thrombosis. Diagnostics. 2020;10:183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfensig S, Kaule S, Ott R, et al. Numerical simulation of a transcatheter aortic heart valve under application-related loading. Curr Dir Biomed Eng. 2018;4:185–189.
   Google Scholar
• Xuan Y, Dvir D, Wang Z, et al. Stent and leaflet stresses across generations of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;30:879–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mylotte D, Lefevre T, Watanabe Y, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:A1939.
   Google Scholar
• Tchetche D, De Biase C, Van Gils L, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve anatomy and relationship with devices: the bavard multicenter registry: a European picture of contemporary multidetector computed tomography sizing for bicuspid valves. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halim SA, Edwards FH, Dai D, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease: A report from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter valve therapy registry. Circulation. 2020;141:1071–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer J, Gheorghe L, Nijenhuis VJ, et al. Insight on patient specific computer modeling of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93:1097–1105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling C, Bavo AM, El Faquir N, et al. Patient-specific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e009178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling C, Firoozi S, Brecker SJ. First-in-human experience with patient-specific computer simulation of TAVR in bicuspid aortic valve morphology. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:184–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavon K, Marom G, Bianchi M, et al. Biomechanical modeling of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a stenotic bicuspid aortic valve: deployments and paravalvular leakage. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2019;57:2129–2143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasta S, Cannata S, Gentile G, et al. Simulation study of transcatheter heart valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid aortic valve. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2020;58:815–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caballero A, Mao W, McKay R, et al. The impact of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement on concomitant mitral regurgitation: A comprehensive computational analysis. J R Soc Interface. 2019;16:20190355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaakobovich H, Plitman Mayo R, Zaretsky U, et al. Numerical models of valve-in-valve implantation: effect of intentional leaflet laceration on the anchorage. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2019;19:415–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Kaul S, et al. ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(2012):1200–1254.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luraghi G, Migliavacca F, Chiastra C, et al. Does clinical data quality affect fluid-structure interaction simulations of patient-specific stenotic aortic valve models? J Biomech. 2019;94:202–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, Migliavacca F, Rodriguez Matas JF. Study on the accuracy of structural and FSI heart valves simulations. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018;9:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, Wu W, De Gaetano F, et al. Evaluation of an aortic valve prosthesis: fluid-structure interaction or structural simulation? J Biomech. 2017;58:45–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, Wu W, De Castilla H, et al. Numerical approach to study the behavior of an artificial ventricle: fluid-structure interaction followed by fluid dynamics with moving boundaries. Artif Organs. 2018;42:E315–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luraghi G, De Gaetano F, Rodriguez Matas JF, et al. A numerical investigation to evaluate the washout of blood compartments in a total artificial heart. Artif Organs. 2020;44:976–986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavo AM, Rocatello G, Iannaccone F, et al. Fluid-structure interaction simulation of prosthetic aortic valves: comparison between immersed boundary and arbitrary lagrangian-eulerian techniques for the mesh representation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craven BA, Aycock I, Herbertson LH, et al. A CFD-based kriging surrogate modeling approach for predicting device-specific hemolysis power law coefficients in blood-contacting medical devices. 18, 1005–1030 (2019).
   Google Scholar
• Pant S, Bressloff NW, Limbert G. Geometry parameterization and multidisciplinary constrained optimization of coronary stents. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2012;11:61–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulugeta L, Drach A, Erdemir A, et al. Credibility, replicability, and reproducibility in simulation for biomedicine and clinical applications in neuroscience. Front Neuroinform. 2018;12:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [cited 2020 November 23].(2018). https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/v-v-40-assessing-credibility-computational-modeling-verification-validation-application-medical-devices.
   Google Scholar
• Steinman DA, Migliavacca F. Editorial: special issue on verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of cardiovascular models: towards effective VVUQ for translating cardiovascular modelling to clinical utility. Cardiovasc Eng Technol. 2018;9:539–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar