Cargando…
Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study
PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics of reimplantation (RI) using grafts with sinuses and remodeling (RM) with/without external suture annuloplasty using a pulsatile flow simulator. METHODS: Porcine aortic roots were obtained from an abattoir, and six models of RM and RI with sinuses were prepare...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Nature Singapore
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10290965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36436023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02622-4 |
_version_ | 1785062598938460160 |
---|---|
author | Seki, Masahiro Kunihara, Takashi Takada, Jyunpei Sasaki, Kenichi Kumazawa, Ryo Seki, Hiroshi Sasuga, Saeko Fukuda, Hirotsugu Umezu, Mitsuo Iwasaki, Kiyotaka |
author_facet | Seki, Masahiro Kunihara, Takashi Takada, Jyunpei Sasaki, Kenichi Kumazawa, Ryo Seki, Hiroshi Sasuga, Saeko Fukuda, Hirotsugu Umezu, Mitsuo Iwasaki, Kiyotaka |
author_sort | Seki, Masahiro |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics of reimplantation (RI) using grafts with sinuses and remodeling (RM) with/without external suture annuloplasty using a pulsatile flow simulator. METHODS: Porcine aortic roots were obtained from an abattoir, and six models of RM and RI with sinuses were prepared. External suture annuloplasty (ESA) was performed in the RM models to decrease the root diameter to 22 mm (RM-AP22) and 18 mm (RM-AP18). Valve models were tested at mean pulsatile flow and aortic pressure of 5.0 L/min and 120/80 (100) mmHg, respectively, at 70 beats/min. The forward flow, regurgitation, leakage, backflow rates, valve-closing time, and mean and peak pressure gradient (p-PG) were evaluated. Root configurations were examined using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). RESULTS: The backflow rate was larger in the RM models than in the RI models (RI: 8.56% ± 0.38% vs. RM: 12.64% ± 0.79%; p < 0.01). The RM-AP and RI models were comparable in terms of the forward flow, regurgitation, backflow rates, p-PG, and valve-closing time. The analysis using a micro-CT showed a larger dilatation of the sinus of the Valsalva in the RM groups than in the RI group (Valsalva: RI, 26.55 ± 0.40 mm vs. RM-AP22, 31.22 ± 0.55 mm [p < 0.05]; RM-AP18, 31.05 ± 0.85 mm [p < 0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: RM with ESA and RI with neo-sinuses showed comparable hemodynamics. ESA to RM reduced regurgitation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00595-022-02622-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10290965 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Nature Singapore |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102909652023-06-27 Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study Seki, Masahiro Kunihara, Takashi Takada, Jyunpei Sasaki, Kenichi Kumazawa, Ryo Seki, Hiroshi Sasuga, Saeko Fukuda, Hirotsugu Umezu, Mitsuo Iwasaki, Kiyotaka Surg Today Original Article PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics of reimplantation (RI) using grafts with sinuses and remodeling (RM) with/without external suture annuloplasty using a pulsatile flow simulator. METHODS: Porcine aortic roots were obtained from an abattoir, and six models of RM and RI with sinuses were prepared. External suture annuloplasty (ESA) was performed in the RM models to decrease the root diameter to 22 mm (RM-AP22) and 18 mm (RM-AP18). Valve models were tested at mean pulsatile flow and aortic pressure of 5.0 L/min and 120/80 (100) mmHg, respectively, at 70 beats/min. The forward flow, regurgitation, leakage, backflow rates, valve-closing time, and mean and peak pressure gradient (p-PG) were evaluated. Root configurations were examined using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). RESULTS: The backflow rate was larger in the RM models than in the RI models (RI: 8.56% ± 0.38% vs. RM: 12.64% ± 0.79%; p < 0.01). The RM-AP and RI models were comparable in terms of the forward flow, regurgitation, backflow rates, p-PG, and valve-closing time. The analysis using a micro-CT showed a larger dilatation of the sinus of the Valsalva in the RM groups than in the RI group (Valsalva: RI, 26.55 ± 0.40 mm vs. RM-AP22, 31.22 ± 0.55 mm [p < 0.05]; RM-AP18, 31.05 ± 0.85 mm [p < 0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: RM with ESA and RI with neo-sinuses showed comparable hemodynamics. ESA to RM reduced regurgitation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00595-022-02622-4. Springer Nature Singapore 2022-11-27 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10290965/ /pubmed/36436023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02622-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Seki, Masahiro Kunihara, Takashi Takada, Jyunpei Sasaki, Kenichi Kumazawa, Ryo Seki, Hiroshi Sasuga, Saeko Fukuda, Hirotsugu Umezu, Mitsuo Iwasaki, Kiyotaka Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title | Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title_full | Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title_short | Comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
title_sort | comparison of hemodynamics and root configurations between remodeling and reimplantation methods for valve-sparing aortic root replacement: a pulsatile flow study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10290965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36436023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02622-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sekimasahiro comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT kuniharatakashi comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT takadajyunpei comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT sasakikenichi comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT kumazawaryo comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT sekihiroshi comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT sasugasaeko comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT fukudahirotsugu comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT umezumitsuo comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy AT iwasakikiyotaka comparisonofhemodynamicsandrootconfigurationsbetweenremodelingandreimplantationmethodsforvalvesparingaorticrootreplacementapulsatileflowstudy |