Comparison of
Prosthetic Valve Hydrodynamic Function: Objective Testing using Statistical
Multilevel Modeling
Gillian M. Bernacca, John H. McColl, David J. Wheatley
Departments of Cardiac Surgery and Statistics,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK |
Background and aim of the study: The performance
of novel prosthetic heart valves is assessed using in-vitro hydrodynamic
function tests. The study aim was to examine the problem of objective
discrimination of hydrodynamic performance to determine significant differences
between valve designs, and illustrate proposed methodology using data
collected from five different polyurethane trileaflet valve designs.
Methods: Two engineering designs were manufactured with
leaflets of the same polyurethane (GE, LE); design L was manufactured
using three further leaflet materials of differing material modulus
(LL, L4, L5). Six valves were made in each design, each tested
at five flow rates in a standard hydrodynamic test rig, with five
test replications for each valve. The data were analyzed using
multilevel statistical modeling methods, allowing simultaneous
comparison of multiple regression lines describing valve performance.
The multilevel model is hierarchical in structure, in this case
with two levels of data, describing individual valves at level
2 and test replicates at level 1. In all cases, the multilevel
model uses the hydrodynamic function measure of interest, |
e.g.
mean pressure gradient or leakage, with logarithmic transformation as
required as the dependent variable, Y. The independent variable, X, is,
in all cases, the natural logarithm of the RMS flow measured through
the valve.
Results: The two-design multilevel model enabled quantitative
discrimination of designs GE and LE, showing that design GE had
significantly better hydrodynamic function overall than design
LE in this case (mean pressure gradient was estimated as 0.93 mmHg
lower at low cardiac output, 14.74 mmHg lower at 9.6 l/min). The
five-design multilevel model showed clearly the relatively poor
hydrodynamic performance of designs L4 and L5 compared with others.
The procedure was straightforward, and produced a statistical comparison
among valve designs that is not easily achieved by other means.
Conclusion: This methodology provides a useful means of
objective assessment of valve function for valve developers. Variance
estimates provided by the analysis also provide a basis for quality
control of valve production and testing.
The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2004;13:467-477 |