(1) Background: This study aimed to analyse the hydrodynamic performance of two generations of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) as a valve-in-valve (ViV) in different surgical aortic valve (SAV) models under standardised conditions. The nitinol-based Evolut R valve is frequently used in ViV procedures. It is unclear whether its successor, the Evolut PRO, is superior in ViV procedures, particularly considering the previously implanted SAV model. (2) Methods: EvolutTM R 26 mm and EvolutTM PRO 26 mm prostheses were implanted in nine 21 mm labelled size SAV models (Hancock® II, Mosaic® UltraTM, EpicTM Supra, TrifectaTM GT, Perimount®, Perimount® Magna Ease, AvalusTM, IntuityTM, Freestyle®) to analyse their hydrodynamic performance under defined circulatory conditions in a pulse duplicator. (3) Results: Both THVs presented with the lowest effective orifice area (EOA) and highest mean pressure gradient (MPG) inside Hancock® II, whereas THVs in Intuity showed the highest EOA and lowest MPG. Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed significant hydrodynamic differences depending on the SAV. Both THVs performed similarly in porcine valves. Although the Evolut R performed better than Evolut PRO in stented bovine SAVs, the Evolut PRO was superior inside the Intuity. Further, the SAV model design markedly influenced the TAV\'s geometric orifice area and pin-wheeling index. (4) Conclusions: These findings show that the Evolut R and Evolut PRO perform differently depending on the previously implanted SAV model. THV selection for treatment of a specific SAV model should consider these results.

BACKGROUND: In vitro assessment is mandatory for artificial heart valve development. This study aims to investigate the effects of pulse duplicator features on valve responsiveness, conduct a sensitivity analysis across valve prosthesis types, and contribute on the development of versatile pulse duplicator systems able to perform reliable prosthetic aortic valve assessment under physiologic hemodynamic conditions.
METHODS: A reference pulse duplicator was established based on literature. Further optimization process led to new designs that underwent a parametric study, also involving different aortic valve prostheses. These designs were evaluated on criteria such as mean pressure differential and pulse pressure (assessed from high-fidelity pressure measurements), valve opening and closing behavior, flow, and regurgitation. Finally, the resulting optimized setup was tested under five different hemodynamic settings simulating a range of physiologic and pathologic conditions.
RESULTS: The results show that both, pulse duplicator design and valve type significantly influence aortic and ventricular pressure, flow, and valve kinematic response. The optimal design comprised key features such as a compliance chamber and restrictor for diastolic pressure maintenance and narrow pulse pressure. Additionally, an atrial reservoir was included to prevent atrial-aortic interference, and a bioprosthetic valve was used in mitral position to avoid delayed valve closing effects.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that individual pulse duplicator features can have a significant effect on valve\'s responsiveness. The optimized versatile pulse duplicator replicated physiologic and pathologic aortic valve hemodynamic conditions, serving as a reliable characterization tool for assessing and optimizing aortic valve performance.

OBJECTIVE: Selection of a surgical aortic valve (SAV) bioprosthesis model for the treatment of aortic valve disease remains controversial. The aim of this study was to characterize the functional performance of 8 SAV models in a standardized in vitro setting.
METHODS: The hydrodynamic performance of 8 SAVs with labelled size 21 mm (Avalus™, Hancock® II, Mosaic® Ultra™, Perimount®, Perimount® Magna Ease, Epic™ Supra, Trifecta™ GT; Freestyle®), was investigated in a pulse duplicator. Transvalvular pressure gradients and effective orifice area (EOA) were recorded. The geometrical orifice area and physical dimensions of the valves were determined, and new functional dimensions were introduced.
RESULTS: Mean pressure gradient (MPG) and EOA differed significantly between the analysed SAVs. The Epic presented with the lowest EOA and highest MPG, while the Trifecta showed the highest EOA and the lowest MPG. We introduce a useful way to determine the minimal internal diameter and a new measure termed \'relative orifice area\' to characterize a valve\'s performance.
CONCLUSIONS: SAVs showed significant differences in their hydrodynamic performance despite the same label size. This finding was related to the construction of the valves. We introduce a new measure that characterizes the functional performance of a valve model and size for the treatment of an aortic annulus of a specific size. Our data emphasize that SAV selection should carefully be done using an individual patient approach and that future research is necessary to improve the current generation of SAVs.