OBJECTIVE: Linear repair of left ventricular aneurysm has been performed with mixed clinical results. By using finite element analysis, this study evaluated the effect of this procedure on end-systolic stress. METHODS: Nine sheep underwent myocardial infarction and aneurysm repair with a linear repair (13.4 +/- 2.3 weeks postmyocardial infarction). Satisfactory magnetic resonance imaging examinations were obtained in 6 sheep (6.6 +/- 0.5 weeks postrepair). Finite element models were constructed from in vivo magnetic resonance imaging-based cardiac geometry and postmortem measurement of myofiber helix angles using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Material properties were iteratively determined by comparing the finite element model output with systolic tagged magnetic resonance imaging strain measurements. RESULTS: At the mid-wall, fiber stress in the border zone decreased by 39% (sham = 32.5 +/- 2.5 kPa, repair = 19.7 +/- 3.6 kPa, P = .001) to the level of remote regions after repair. In the septum, however, border zone fiber stress remained high (sham = 31.3 +/- 5.4 kPa, repair = 23.8 +/- 5.8 kPa, P = .29). Cross-fiber stress at the mid-wall decreased by 41% (sham = 13.0 +/- 1.5 kPa, repair = 7.7 +/- 2.1 kPa, P = .01), but cross-fiber stress in the un-excluded septal infarct was 75% higher in the border zone than remote regions (remote = 5.9 +/- 1.9 kPa, border zone = 10.3 +/- 3.6 kPa, P < .01). However, end-diastolic fiber and cross-fiber stress were not reduced in the remote myocardium after plication. CONCLUSION: With the exception of the retained septal infarct, end-systolic stress is reduced in all areas of the left ventricle after infarct plication. Consequently, we expect the primary positive effect of infarct plication to be in the infarct border zone. However, the amount of stress reduction necessary to halt or reverse nonischemic infarct extension in the infarct border zone and eccentric hypertrophy in the remote myocardium is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: Linear repair of left ventricular aneurysm has been performed with mixed clinical results. By using finite element analysis, this study evaluated the effect of this procedure on end-systolic stress. METHODS: Nine sheep underwent myocardial infarction and aneurysm repair with a linear repair (13.4 +/- 2.3 weeks postmyocardial infarction). Satisfactory magnetic resonance imaging examinations were obtained in 6 sheep (6.6 +/- 0.5 weeks postrepair). Finite element models were constructed from in vivo magnetic resonance imaging-based cardiac geometry and postmortem measurement of myofiber helix angles using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Material properties were iteratively determined by comparing the finite element model output with systolic tagged magnetic resonance imaging strain measurements. RESULTS: At the mid-wall, fiber stress in the border zone decreased by 39% (sham = 32.5 +/- 2.5 kPa, repair = 19.7 +/- 3.6 kPa, P = .001) to the level of remote regions after repair. In the septum, however, border zone fiber stress remained high (sham = 31.3 +/- 5.4 kPa, repair = 23.8 +/- 5.8 kPa, P = .29). Cross-fiber stress at the mid-wall decreased by 41% (sham = 13.0 +/- 1.5 kPa, repair = 7.7 +/- 2.1 kPa, P = .01), but cross-fiber stress in the un-excluded septal infarct was 75% higher in the border zone than remote regions (remote = 5.9 +/- 1.9 kPa, border zone = 10.3 +/- 3.6 kPa, P < .01). However, end-diastolic fiber and cross-fiber stress were not reduced in the remote myocardium after plication. CONCLUSION: With the exception of the retained septal infarct, end-systolic stress is reduced in all areas of the left ventricle after infarct plication. Consequently, we expect the primary positive effect of infarct plication to be in the infarct border zone. However, the amount of stress reduction necessary to halt or reverse nonischemic infarct extension in the infarct border zone and eccentric hypertrophy in the remote myocardium is unknown.
Authors: Y Aikawa; L Rohde; J Plehn; S C Greaves; F Menapace; M O Arnold; J L Rouleau; M A Pfeffer; R T Lee; S D Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J M Guccione; S M Moonly; P Moustakidis; K D Costa; M J Moulton; M B Ratcliffe; M K Pasque Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Christopher M Kramer; James A Magovern; Walter J Rogers; Diane Vido; Edward B Savage Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Julius M Guccione; Joseph C Walker; Jeremy R Beitler; Scott M Moonly; Peng Zhang; Michael A Guttman; Cengizhan Ozturk; Elliot R McVeigh; Arthur W Wallace; David A Saloner; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Pavlos Moustakidis; Hersh S Maniar; Brian P Cupps; Tarek Absi; Jie Zheng; Julius M Guccione; Thoralf M Sundt; Michael K Pasque Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-09-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin M Jackson; Joseph H Gorman; Sina L Moainie; T Sloane Guy; Navneet Narula; Jagat Narula; Martin G John-Sutton; L Henry Edmunds; Robert C Gorman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-09-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel R Einstein; Facundo Del Pin; Xiangmin Jiao; Andrew P Kuprat; James P Carson; Karyn S Kunzelman; Richard P Cochran; Julius M Guccione; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Int J Numer Methods Eng Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Lik Chuan Lee; Jonathan F Wenk; Doron Klepach; Zhihong Zhang; David Saloner; Arthur W Wallace; Liang Ge; Mark B Ratcliffe; Julius M Guccione Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: L Zhong; Y Su; L Gobeawan; S Sola; R-S Tan; J L Navia; D N Ghista; T Chua; J Guccione; G S Kassab Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Lik Chuan Lee; Liang Ge; Zhihong Zhang; Matthew Pease; Serjan D Nikolic; Rakesh Mishra; Mark B Ratcliffe; Julius M Guccione Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Jonathan F Wenk; Kay Sun; Zhihong Zhang; Mehrdad Soleimani; Liang Ge; David Saloner; Arthur W Wallace; Mark B Ratcliffe; Julius M Guccione Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Kay Sun; Nielen Stander; Choon-Sik Jhun; Zhihong Zhang; Takamaro Suzuki; Guan-Ying Wang; Maythem Saeed; Arthur W Wallace; Elaine E Tseng; Anthony J Baker; David Saloner; Daniel R Einstein; Mark B Ratcliffe; Julius M Guccione Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.097