Joe Luis Pantoja1, Liang Ge2, Zhihong Zhang3, William G Morrel1, Julius M Guccione2, Eugene A Grossi4, Mark B Ratcliffe5. 1. School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University, New York, New York; New York Harbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: mark.ratcliffe@med.va.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of posterior papillary muscle anchoring (PPMA) in the management of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR) is controversial. We studied the effect of anchoring point direction and relocation displacement on left ventricular (LV) regional myofiber stress and pump function. METHODS: Previously described finite element models of sheep 16 weeks after posterolateral myocardial infarction (MI) were used. True-sized mitral annuloplasty (MA) ring insertion plus different PPM anchoring techniques were simulated. Anchoring points tested included both commissures and the central anterior mitral annulus; relocation displacement varied from 10% to 40% of baseline diastolic distance from the PPM to the anchor points on the annulus. For each reconstruction scenario, myofiber stress in the MI, border zone, and remote myocardium as well as pump function were calculated. RESULTS: PPMA caused reductions in myofiber stress at end-diastole and end-systole in all regions of the left ventricle that were proportional to the relocation displacement. Although stress reduction was greatest in the MI region, it also occurred in the remote region. The maximum 40% displacement caused a slight reduction in LV pump function. However, with the correction of regurgitation by MA plus PPMA, there was an overall increase in forward stroke volume. Finally, anchoring point direction had no effect on myofiber stress or pump function. CONCLUSIONS: PPMA reduces remote myofiber stress, which is proportional to the absolute distance of relocation and independent of anchoring point. Aggressive use of PPMA techniques to reduce remote myofiber stress may accelerate reverse LV remodeling without impairing LV function.
BACKGROUND: The role of posterior papillary muscle anchoring (PPMA) in the management of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR) is controversial. We studied the effect of anchoring point direction and relocation displacement on left ventricular (LV) regional myofiber stress and pump function. METHODS: Previously described finite element models of sheep 16 weeks after posterolateral myocardial infarction (MI) were used. True-sized mitral annuloplasty (MA) ring insertion plus different PPM anchoring techniques were simulated. Anchoring points tested included both commissures and the central anterior mitral annulus; relocation displacement varied from 10% to 40% of baseline diastolic distance from the PPM to the anchor points on the annulus. For each reconstruction scenario, myofiber stress in the MI, border zone, and remote myocardium as well as pump function were calculated. RESULTS:PPMA caused reductions in myofiber stress at end-diastole and end-systole in all regions of the left ventricle that were proportional to the relocation displacement. Although stress reduction was greatest in the MI region, it also occurred in the remote region. The maximum 40% displacement caused a slight reduction in LV pump function. However, with the correction of regurgitation by MA plus PPMA, there was an overall increase in forward stroke volume. Finally, anchoring point direction had no effect on myofiber stress or pump function. CONCLUSIONS:PPMA reduces remote myofiber stress, which is proportional to the absolute distance of relocation and independent of anchoring point. Aggressive use of PPMA techniques to reduce remote myofiber stress may accelerate reverse LV remodeling without impairing LV function.
Authors: Frank Langer; Filiberto Rodriguez; Saskia Ortiz; Allen Cheng; Tom C Nguyen; Mary K Zasio; David Liang; George T Daughters; Neil B Ingels; D Craig Miller Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michele De Bonis; Elisabetta Lapenna; Alessandro Verzini; Giovanni La Canna; Antonio Grimaldi; Lucia Torracca; Francesco Maisano; Ottavio Alfieri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Ronen Beeri; Chaim Yosefy; J Luis Guerrero; Francesca Nesta; Suzan Abedat; Miguel Chaput; Federica del Monte; Mark D Handschumacher; Robert Stroud; Suzanne Sullivan; Thea Pugatsch; Dan Gilon; Gus J Vlahakes; Francis G Spinale; Roger J Hajjar; Robert A Levine Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kanji Matsuzaki; Masato Morita; Hirotsugu Hamamoto; Mio Noma; J Daniel Robb; Matthew J Gillespie; Joseph H Gorman; Robert C Gorman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Yong-Hwan Kim; Lawrence S C Czer; Harmik J Soukiasian; Michele De Robertis; Kathy E Magliato; Carlos Blanche; Sharo S Raissi; James Mirocha; Robert J Siegel; Robert M Kass; Alfredo Trento Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Rafael Shimkunas; Zhihong Zhang; Jonathan F Wenk; Mehrdad Soleimani; Michael Khazalpour; Gabriel Acevedo-Bolton; Guanying Wang; David Saloner; Rakesh Mishra; Arthur W Wallace; Liang Ge; Anthony J Baker; Julius M Guccione; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Julius M Guccione; Ali Salahieh; Scott M Moonly; Jeroen Kortsmit; Arthur W Wallace; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael A Acker; Michael K Parides; Louis P Perrault; Alan J Moskowitz; Annetine C Gelijns; Pierre Voisine; Peter K Smith; Judy W Hung; Eugene H Blackstone; John D Puskas; Michael Argenziano; James S Gammie; Michael Mack; Deborah D Ascheim; Emilia Bagiella; Ellen G Moquete; T Bruce Ferguson; Keith A Horvath; Nancy L Geller; Marissa A Miller; Y Joseph Woo; David A D'Alessandro; Gorav Ailawadi; Francois Dagenais; Timothy J Gardner; Patrick T O'Gara; Robert E Michler; Irving L Kron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joe Luis Pantoja; Ashley E Morgan; Eugene A Grossi; Morten O Jensen; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Robert A Levine; Liang Ge; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Choukri Mekkaoui; Timothy G Reese; Marcel P Jackowski; Stephen F Cauley; Kawin Setsompop; Himanshu Bhat; David E Sosnovik Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ashley E Morgan; Joe Luis Pantoja; Jonathan Weinsaft; Eugene Grossi; Julius M Guccione; Liang Ge; Mark Ratcliffe Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Yue Zhang; Vicky Y Wang; Ashley E Morgan; Jiwon Kim; Mark D Handschumacher; Chaya S Moskowitz; Robert A Levine; Liang Ge; Julius M Guccione; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fanwei Kong; Thuy Pham; Caitlin Martin; John Elefteriades; Raymond McKay; Charles Primiano; Wei Sun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240