Literature DB >> 26338050

Comparative Histology of Aortic Dilatation Associated With Bileaflet Versus Trileaflet Aortic Valves.

Elbert Heng1, James R Stone2, Joon Bum Kim3, Hang Lee4, Thomas E MacGillivray5, Thoralf M Sundt6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A more aggressive posture toward resection of the dilated aorta has been advocated when associated with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), based on the notion that aortic material properties are weaker in this setting despite scant data to support or refute this position. The hypothesis that histologic abnormality reflects aortic wall strength was tested by comparing aortas from patients with BAV and trileaflet aortic valve.
METHODS: Resected aortas associated with BAV (n = 60) and trileaflet aortic valve (n = 24) were compared with normal diameter aortas from patients undergoing cardiac transplantation (n = 16) by five histologic criteria: elastic fiber loss (graded 0-4), smooth muscle cell loss (graded 0-4), medial proteoglycan accumulation (graded 0-3), medial fibrosis (graded 0-3), and atherosclerosis (graded 0-3). Patients with known connective tissue disorders, systemic inflammatory conditions, dissection, or prior heart surgery were excluded.
RESULTS: Patients with BAV were a decade younger and more often had functional stenosis. The extent of elastic fiber loss, smooth muscle cell loss, medial fibrosis, and atherosclerosis was more severe in trileaflet aortic valve than BAV when considered across all diameters and when stratified to those between 4 and 5 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: More severe histologic abnormalities associated with trileaflet aortic valve compared with BAV, especially when stratified by diameter, do not support a more aggressive approach to surgical intervention for dilatation associated with BAV. Indeed, if based on histologic diagnosis alone, our findings are suggestive that the converse might be true. Additionally, the lack of correlation between aortic diameter and histologic abnormality in the setting of BAV highlights the inadequacy of diameter alone as a criterion for aortic resection.
Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26338050     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.05.105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  6 in total

1.  Medial degeneration and atherosclerosis show discrete variance around the circumference of ascending aorta aneurysms.

Authors:  Vaclav Stejskal; Mikita Karalko; Petr Smolak; Michaela Hanusova; Ivo Steiner
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 4.535

Review 2.  Bicuspid aortic valve related aortopathy.

Authors:  Sina Stock; Salah A Mohamed; Hans-Hinrich Sievers
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2017-08-30

Review 3.  Year in review: bicuspid aortopathy.

Authors:  Paul W M Fedak; Alex J Barker; Subodh Verma
Journal:  Curr Opin Cardiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.161

4.  The American Association for Thoracic Surgery consensus guidelines on bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy: Full online-only version.

Authors:  Michael A Borger; Paul W M Fedak; Elizabeth H Stephens; Thomas G Gleason; Evaldas Girdauskas; John S Ikonomidis; Ali Khoynezhad; Samuel C Siu; Subodh Verma; Michael D Hope; Duke E Cameron; Donald F Hammer; Joseph S Coselli; Marc R Moon; Thoralf M Sundt; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl; Alessandro Della Corte; Hector I Michelena; John A Elefteriades
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.209

5.  Ascending aortic wall degeneration in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve.

Authors:  Ari Mennander; Ivana Kholova; Saku Pelttari; Timo Paavonen
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 1.522

6.  Evolution of Precision Medicine and Surgical Strategies for Bicuspid Aortic Valve-Associated Aortopathy.

Authors:  Ali Fatehi Hassanabad; Alex J Barker; David Guzzardi; Michael Markl; Chris Malaisrie; Patrick M McCarthy; Paul W M Fedak
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.566

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.