TY - JOUR
T1 - Aortic root geometry following valve-sparing root replacement with reimplantation or remodeling
T2 - experimental investigation under static continuous pressure
AU - Sasaki, Kenichi
AU - Kunihara, Takashi
AU - Kasegawa, Hitoshi
AU - Seki, Masahiro
AU - Seki, Hiroshi
AU - Takada, Jumpei
AU - Sasuga, Saeko
AU - Kumazawa, Ryo
AU - Umezu, Mitsuo
AU - Iwasaki, Kiyotaka
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.15K10227) from Japan Society for the promotion of science (JSPS) and Subsidy Program for Development of International Standards for Evaluation of Innovative Medical Devices and Regenerative Medicine Products, from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan.
Funding Information:
This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.15K10227) from Japan Society for the promotion of science (JSPS) and Subsidy Program for Development of International Standards for Evaluation of Innovative Medical Devices and Regenerative Medicine Products, from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - The differences in aortic root geometry associated with various valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) techniques have not fully been understood. We evaluated the root configuration of current VSRR techniques by developing in vitro test apparatus. Six fresh porcine hearts were used for each model. The aortic root remodeling control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta with diameter reduction of sino-tubular junction (STJ) (C1). The aortic valve reimplantation control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta alone (C2). VSRR included remodeling without (RM) or with annuloplasty (RM + A) and reimplantation with a tube (RI) or a handmade neo-Valsalva graft (RI + V). The root geometry of each model in response to closing hydraulic pressures of 80 and 120 mmHg was investigated using echocardiography. Among the VSRR models, RM yielded the largest aorto-ventricular junction (AVJ), which was similar to those in non-VSRR models [mean AVJ diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 25.1 ± 1.5, RM + A = 20.9 ± 0.7, RI = 20.7 ± 0.9, RI + V = 20.8 ± 0.4]. RI + V yielded the largest Valsalva size and largest ratio of Valsalva/AVJ, which was similar to the control group [mean Valsalva diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 28.4 ± 1.4, RM + A = 25.8 ± 1.3, RI = 23.6 ± 1.0, RI + V = 30.5 ± 0.8, ratio of Valsalva/AVJ at 80 mmHg; RM = 1.14 ± 0.06, RM + A = 1.24 ± 0.06, RI = 1.15 ± 0.06, RI + V = 1.47 ± 0.05]. The STJ diameter at 80 mmHg was numerically smaller with RM + A (22.4 ± 1.2 mm) than with RM (24.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in AVJ, Valsalva, or STJ distensibility or ellipticity between procedures. Current modifications, including annuloplasty for remodeling or reimplantation in the setting of neo-Valsalva graft, yield near-physiological root geometries.
AB - The differences in aortic root geometry associated with various valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) techniques have not fully been understood. We evaluated the root configuration of current VSRR techniques by developing in vitro test apparatus. Six fresh porcine hearts were used for each model. The aortic root remodeling control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta with diameter reduction of sino-tubular junction (STJ) (C1). The aortic valve reimplantation control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta alone (C2). VSRR included remodeling without (RM) or with annuloplasty (RM + A) and reimplantation with a tube (RI) or a handmade neo-Valsalva graft (RI + V). The root geometry of each model in response to closing hydraulic pressures of 80 and 120 mmHg was investigated using echocardiography. Among the VSRR models, RM yielded the largest aorto-ventricular junction (AVJ), which was similar to those in non-VSRR models [mean AVJ diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 25.1 ± 1.5, RM + A = 20.9 ± 0.7, RI = 20.7 ± 0.9, RI + V = 20.8 ± 0.4]. RI + V yielded the largest Valsalva size and largest ratio of Valsalva/AVJ, which was similar to the control group [mean Valsalva diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 28.4 ± 1.4, RM + A = 25.8 ± 1.3, RI = 23.6 ± 1.0, RI + V = 30.5 ± 0.8, ratio of Valsalva/AVJ at 80 mmHg; RM = 1.14 ± 0.06, RM + A = 1.24 ± 0.06, RI = 1.15 ± 0.06, RI + V = 1.47 ± 0.05]. The STJ diameter at 80 mmHg was numerically smaller with RM + A (22.4 ± 1.2 mm) than with RM (24.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in AVJ, Valsalva, or STJ distensibility or ellipticity between procedures. Current modifications, including annuloplasty for remodeling or reimplantation in the setting of neo-Valsalva graft, yield near-physiological root geometries.
KW - Aortic root geometry
KW - Aortic root remodeling
KW - Aortic valve reimplantation
KW - In vitro investigation
KW - Valve-sparing root replacement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099753963&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099753963&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10047-020-01242-4
DO - 10.1007/s10047-020-01242-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 33484362
AN - SCOPUS:85099753963
SN - 1434-7229
VL - 24
SP - 245
EP - 253
JO - Journal of Artificial Organs
JF - Journal of Artificial Organs
IS - 2
ER -