Cargando…

Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves

Objectives. Bicuspid aortic valve (AV) represents the most common form of congenital AV malformation, which is frequently associated with pathologies of the ascending aorta. We compared the mechanical properties of the aortic wall between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AV using a new custom-ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benedik, Jaroslav, Pilarczyk, Kevin, Wendt, Daniel, Indruch, Jiri, Flek, Radek, Tsagakis, Konstantinos, Alaeddine, Savvas, Jakob, Heinz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22988539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/180238
_version_ 1782243217385717760
author Benedik, Jaroslav
Pilarczyk, Kevin
Wendt, Daniel
Indruch, Jiri
Flek, Radek
Tsagakis, Konstantinos
Alaeddine, Savvas
Jakob, Heinz
author_facet Benedik, Jaroslav
Pilarczyk, Kevin
Wendt, Daniel
Indruch, Jiri
Flek, Radek
Tsagakis, Konstantinos
Alaeddine, Savvas
Jakob, Heinz
author_sort Benedik, Jaroslav
collection PubMed
description Objectives. Bicuspid aortic valve (AV) represents the most common form of congenital AV malformation, which is frequently associated with pathologies of the ascending aorta. We compared the mechanical properties of the aortic wall between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AV using a new custom-made device mimicking transversal aortic wall shear stress. Methods. Between 03/2010 and 07/2011, 190 consecutive patients undergoing open aortic valve replacement at our institution were prospectively enrolled, presenting either with a bicuspid (group 1, n = 44) or a tricuspid (group 2, n = 146) AV. Aortic wall specimen were examined with the “dissectometer” resulting in nine specific aortic-wall parameters derived from tensile strength curves (TSC). Results. Patients with a bicuspid AV showed significantly more calcified valves (43.2% versus 15.8%, P < 0.001), and a significantly thinner aortic wall (2.04 ± 0.42 mm versus 2.24 ± 0.41 mm, P = 0.008). Transesophageal echocardiography diameters (annulus, aortic sinuses, and sinotubular junction) were significantly larger in the bicuspid group (P = 0.003, P = 0.02, P = 0.01). We found no difference in the aortic wall cohesion between both groups as revealed by shear stress testing (P = 0.72, P = 0.40, P = 0.41). Conclusion. We observed no differences of TSC in patients presenting with tricuspid or bicuspid AVs. These results may allow us to assume that the morphology of the AV and the pathology of the ascending aorta are independent.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3441012
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34410122012-09-17 Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves Benedik, Jaroslav Pilarczyk, Kevin Wendt, Daniel Indruch, Jiri Flek, Radek Tsagakis, Konstantinos Alaeddine, Savvas Jakob, Heinz Cardiol Res Pract Clinical Study Objectives. Bicuspid aortic valve (AV) represents the most common form of congenital AV malformation, which is frequently associated with pathologies of the ascending aorta. We compared the mechanical properties of the aortic wall between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AV using a new custom-made device mimicking transversal aortic wall shear stress. Methods. Between 03/2010 and 07/2011, 190 consecutive patients undergoing open aortic valve replacement at our institution were prospectively enrolled, presenting either with a bicuspid (group 1, n = 44) or a tricuspid (group 2, n = 146) AV. Aortic wall specimen were examined with the “dissectometer” resulting in nine specific aortic-wall parameters derived from tensile strength curves (TSC). Results. Patients with a bicuspid AV showed significantly more calcified valves (43.2% versus 15.8%, P < 0.001), and a significantly thinner aortic wall (2.04 ± 0.42 mm versus 2.24 ± 0.41 mm, P = 0.008). Transesophageal echocardiography diameters (annulus, aortic sinuses, and sinotubular junction) were significantly larger in the bicuspid group (P = 0.003, P = 0.02, P = 0.01). We found no difference in the aortic wall cohesion between both groups as revealed by shear stress testing (P = 0.72, P = 0.40, P = 0.41). Conclusion. We observed no differences of TSC in patients presenting with tricuspid or bicuspid AVs. These results may allow us to assume that the morphology of the AV and the pathology of the ascending aorta are independent. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012 2012-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3441012/ /pubmed/22988539 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/180238 Text en Copyright © 2012 Jaroslav Benedik et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Benedik, Jaroslav
Pilarczyk, Kevin
Wendt, Daniel
Indruch, Jiri
Flek, Radek
Tsagakis, Konstantinos
Alaeddine, Savvas
Jakob, Heinz
Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title_full Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title_fullStr Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title_full_unstemmed Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title_short Ascending Aortic Wall Cohesion: Comparison of Bicuspid and Tricuspid Valves
title_sort ascending aortic wall cohesion: comparison of bicuspid and tricuspid valves
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22988539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/180238
work_keys_str_mv AT benedikjaroslav ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT pilarczykkevin ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT wendtdaniel ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT indruchjiri ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT flekradek ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT tsagakiskonstantinos ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT alaeddinesavvas ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves
AT jakobheinz ascendingaorticwallcohesioncomparisonofbicuspidandtricuspidvalves