| Literature DB >> 19671155 |
Christopher J Berry1, Jordan D Miller, KellyAnn McGroary, Daniel R Thedens, Stephen G Young, Donald D Heistad, Robert M Weiss.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve regurgitation is usually caused by impaired coaptation of the aortic valve cusps during diastole. Hypercholesterolemia produces aortic valve lipid deposition, fibrosis, and calcification in both mice and humans, which could impair coaptation of cusps. However, a link between hypercholesterolemia and aortic regurgitation has not been established in either species. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the prevalence of aortic regurgitation in hypercholesterolemic mice and to determine its impact on the left and right ventricles. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19671155 PMCID: PMC2731737 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-11-27
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Magnetic resonance imaging of aortic regurgitation in Reversa mice. Left panel: Long-axis image of the left ventricle in early diastole before mitral valve opening. Arrow indicates turbulent dephasing of blood caused by diastolic flow across the aortic valve. Video images can be viewed in the on-line video supplement (Additional file 1). Right panel: prevalence of aortic regurgitation, graded by severity, in Reversa mice (n = 80) and in all normocholesterolemic control mice (n = 40). Tr-Mild = trace or mild. *p = 0.004, Reversa mice vs. control mice.
Figure 2Aortic root diameter. Measurements were taken at the level of the sinotubular junction in Control mice (n = 32), Reversa mice without hemodynamically significant aortic regurgitation (< Mild AR, n = 57), and Reversa mice with moderate or severe AR (mod-severe AR, n = 14). p = 0.11 for the comparison.
Effects of aortic regurgitation on ventricular anatomy and function.
| p | ||||
| Heart Rate | min-1 | 452 ± 26 | 445 ± 39 | 0.88 |
| EDV | μL | 31.3 ± 1.6 | 58.4 ± 8.8 | 0.006 |
| ESV | μL | 6.9 ± 1.5 | 27.4 ± 7.6 | 0.02 |
| SV | μL | 24.4 ± 1.7 | 31.7 ± 2.9 | 0.04 |
| EF | 0.79 ± 0.04 | 0.60 ± 0.05 | 0.007 | |
| Mass | mg | 48.6 ± 3.3 | 74.6 ± 7.8 | 0.005 |
| EDV/Mass | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 0.77 ± 0.05 | 0.2 | |
| Regrg Frac | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.04 | < 0.001 | |
| EDV | μL | 31.4 ± 2.2 | 39.7 ± 3.2 | 0.046 |
| ESV | μL | 7.5 ± 1.1 | 19.5 ± 1.6 | < 0.001 |
| SV | μL | 23.9 ± 1.8 | 20.9 ± 1.9 | 0.26 |
| EF | 0.76 ± 0.03 | 0.53 ± 0.02 | < 0.001 | |
AR+ aortic regurgitation present; AR- aortic regurgitation absent; EDV end-diastolic volume; SV stroke volume; ESV end-systolic volume; EF ejection fraction; Regrg Frac regurgitant fraction.
N = 12 in each group.
Figure 3Effects of left ventricular systolic dysfunction on left ventricular remodeling and right ventricular function. When LVEF is < 0.60, the end-diastolic volume/mass ratio (LV EDV/Mass) is significantly increased, indicating pathological remodeling, and RVEF is also more significantly impaired.