Search

Subaortic stenosis (SAS) is a common congenital heart disease that can cause significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. Patients with heart valve disease are prone to complications after replacement surgery, and the existence of SAS can accelerates disease progression, so timely diagnosis and treatment are required. However, the effects of subaortic stenosis on mechanical heart valves (MHV) are unknown. This study aimed to investigate flow characteristics in the presence of subaortic stenosis and computationally quantify the effects on the hemodynamics of MHV. Through the numerical simulation method, the flow characteristics and related parameters in the presence of SAS can be more intuitively observed. Based on its structure, there are three types of SAS: Tunnel-type SAS (TSS); Fibromuscular annulus SAS (FSS); Discrete SAS (DSS). The first numerical simulation study on different types of SAS found that there are obvious differences among them. Among them, the tunnel-type SAS formed a separated vortex structure on the tunnel-type narrow surface, which exhibits higher wall shear force at a low obstacle percentage. However, discrete SAS showed obvious differences when there was a high percentage of obstacles, forming high peak flow, high wall shear stress, and a high-intensity complex vortex. The presence of all three types of SAS results in the formation of high-velocity jets and complex vortices in front of the MHV, leading to increased shear stress and stagnation time. These hemodynamic changes significantly increase the risk of MHV dysfunction and the development of complications. Despite differences between the three types of SAS, the resultant effects on MHV hemodynamics are consistent. Therefore, early surgical intervention is warranted in SAS patients with implanted MHV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the original publication [[1]], there was a mistake in relation to the cited Reference [16] (Vickers, N.J., 2017 [[2]]), which has been replaced by the work of Guivier et al., 2007 [[3]], and the order of references remains the same.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.By Aolin Chen; Adi Azriff Basri; Norzian Bin Ismail and Kamarul Arifin AhmadReported by Author; Author; Author; Author [Extracted from the article]