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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |