OBJECTIVE: To compare three-dimensional dynamics between implanted Cosgrove-Edwards and Sorin Memo-3D annuloplasty rings during the cardiac cycle. METHODS: We examined 11 Cosgrove-Edwards rings and 20 Sorin Memo-3D rings after mitral plasty using real-time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. We evaluated ring height, ellipticity, and geometry during one cardiac cycle. Four evenly spaced phases each selected during systole and diastole were assessed using REAL VIEW software. RESULTS: The height of the Cosgrove-Edwards and Sorin Memo-3D rings was similar (2.3 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, p = 0.44). The maximum difference in ring height during one cardiac cycle (change in height) was larger for the Cosgrove-Edwards than the Sorin Memo-3D rings (2.3 ± 0.8 vs. 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.014). Ellipticity and the maximum difference in ellipticity during one cardiac cycle (change in ellipticity) were larger for Cosgrove-Edwards than Sorin Memo-3D rings (80.0 ± 9.1 vs. 72.0 ± 4.8 %, p = 0.014, respectively, and 12.0 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 1.8 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cosgrove-Edwards rings were more flexible, whereas Sorin Memo-3D rings maintained the elliptical shape more effectively.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three-dimensional dynamics between implanted Cosgrove-Edwards and Sorin Memo-3D annuloplasty rings during the cardiac cycle. METHODS: We examined 11 Cosgrove-Edwards rings and 20 Sorin Memo-3D rings after mitral plasty using real-time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. We evaluated ring height, ellipticity, and geometry during one cardiac cycle. Four evenly spaced phases each selected during systole and diastole were assessed using REAL VIEW software. RESULTS: The height of the Cosgrove-Edwards and Sorin Memo-3D rings was similar (2.3 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, p = 0.44). The maximum difference in ring height during one cardiac cycle (change in height) was larger for the Cosgrove-Edwards than the Sorin Memo-3D rings (2.3 ± 0.8 vs. 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.014). Ellipticity and the maximum difference in ellipticity during one cardiac cycle (change in ellipticity) were larger for Cosgrove-Edwards than Sorin Memo-3D rings (80.0 ± 9.1 vs. 72.0 ± 4.8 %, p = 0.014, respectively, and 12.0 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 1.8 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cosgrove-Edwards rings were more flexible, whereas Sorin Memo-3D rings maintained the elliptical shape more effectively.
Authors: Masao Daimon; Giuseppe Saracino; Shota Fukuda; Yasushi Koyama; Jun Kwan; Jong-Min Song; Deborah A Agler; A Marc Gillinov; James D Thomas; Takahiro Shiota Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Jun Kwan; Jian Xin Qin; Zoran B Popović; Deborah A Agler; James D Thomas; Takahiro Shiota Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Liam P Ryan; Benjamin M Jackson; Yoshiharu Enomoto; Landi Parish; Theodore J Plappert; Martin G St John-Sutton; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Manuel K Rausch; Wolfgang Bothe; John-Peder Escobar Kvitting; Julia C Swanson; Neil B Ingels; D Craig Miller; Ellen Kuhl Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: J H Gorman; K B Gupta; J T Streicher; R C Gorman; B M Jackson; M B Ratcliffe; D K Bogen; L H Edmunds Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: R A Levine; M D Handschumacher; A J Sanfilippo; A A Hagege; P Harrigan; J E Marshall; A E Weyman Journal: Circulation Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yan Topilsky; Ori Vaturi; Nozomi Watanabe; Valentina Bichara; Vuyisile T Nkomo; Hector Michelena; Thierry Le Tourneau; Sunil V Mankad; Soon Park; Mary Ann Capps; Rakesh Suri; Sorin V Pislaru; Joseph Maalouf; Kiyoshi Yoshida; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 5.501