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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seki, Masahiro, Kunihara, Takashi, Takada, Jyunpei, Sasaki, Kenichi, Kumazawa, Ryo, Seki, Hiroshi, Sasuga, Saeko, Fukuda, Hirotsugu, Umezu, Mitsuo, Iwasaki, Kiyotaka
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