Literature DB >> 23117234

Comparison of radial deformability of stent posts of different aortic bioprostheses.

Martins Kalejs1, Romans Lacis, Vladimir Kasyanov, Iveta Ozolanta, Philippe Abdel Sayed, Peteris Stradins, Ludwig Karl von Segesser.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the stent deformability required for optimal stented heart valve bioprosthesis design. Therefore, two bioprosthetic valves with known good long-term clinical results were tested. The strain in the radial direction of the stent posts of these valves was compared with contemporary bioprosthetic valves and a native porcine aortic root.
METHODS: Medtronic Intact and Carpentier-Edwards Standard (CES), and four contemporary bioprostheses, including one self-expanding prosthesis, were tested with three sonomicrometry probes per valve fixed at commissure attachment points. The mean values from 2400 data points from three measurements of the interprobe distances were used to calculate the radius of the circle circumscribed around the three probes. Changes in the radius of the aortic root at pressures 70-90 and 120-140 mmHg (pressure during diastole and systole) and that of the stent posts at 70-90 and 0-10 mmHg (transvalvular pressure gradient during diastole and systole) were compared.
RESULTS: An increase in radius by 7.3 ± 2.6, 8.7 ± 0.0 and 3.9 ± 0.0% for the porcine aortic root, CES and Intact valves, respectively, was observed during transition from diastolic to systolic pressure and less for contemporary bioprostheses-mean 2.5 ± 0.9%, lowest 1.2 ± 0.0.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the radial deformability of bioprosthetic valve stent posts can be as low as 1.2% for xenoaortic and 3.0% for xenopericardial prostheses with no compromise of valve durability. Although these results suggest that valve stent post-deformability might not be of critical importance, a concrete answer to the question of the significance of stent deformability for valve durability can be obtained only by acquiring long-term follow-up results for valve prostheses with rigid stents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23117234      PMCID: PMC3548538          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivs457

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  21 in total

1.  Computer modelling of bioprosthetic heart valves.

Authors:  G W Christie
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 2.  The evolution of bioprosthetic heart valve design and its impact on durability.

Authors:  I Vesely
Journal:  Cardiovasc Pathol       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.185

3.  A four-dimensional study of the aortic root dynamics.

Authors:  E Lansac; H S Lim; Y Shomura; K H Lim; N T Rice; W Goetz; C Acar; C M G Duran
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.191

4.  The geometry of the aortic root in health, at valve disease and after valve replacement.

Authors:  H Reul; A Vahlbruch; M Giersiepen; T Schmitz-Rode; V Hirtz; S Effert
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Elastic and viscoelastic material behaviour of fresh and glutaraldehyde-treated porcine aortic valve tissue.

Authors:  E P Rousseau; A A Sauren; M C van Hout; A A van Steenhoven
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?

Authors:  Tirone E David; Susan Armstrong; Manjula Maganti
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Intact Medtronic and Carpentier Edwards S.A.V.: clinical and hemodynamic outcomes over 13 years.

Authors:  A de la Fuente; R Sánchez; A Imizcoz; J L Fernández; F Olaz; I Moriones
Journal:  Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2003-04

8.  Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses: clinical performance assessed by actual analysis.

Authors:  W R Jamieson; R T Miyagishima; L H Burr; S V Lichtenstein; G J Fradet; M T Janusz
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2000-07

9.  Hancock II bioprosthesis: a glance at the microscope in mid-long-term explants.

Authors:  Tomaso Bottio; Gaetano Thiene; Elena Pettenazzo; Paolo Ius; Uberto Bortolotti; Giulio Rizzoli; Carlo Valfré; Dino Casarotto; Marialuisa Valente
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.209

10.  Commissural dehiscence of Carpentier-Edwards mitral bioprostheses. Explant analysis and pathogenesis.

Authors:  J F Nistal; A Hurlé; J A Gutiérrez; F Mazorra; J M Revuelta
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 5.209

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.