Yan Shan1, Jun Li2, Yongshi Wang3, Boting Wu4, Alex J Barker5, Michael Markl6, Chunsheng Wang2, Xiaolin Wang1, Xianhong Shu7. 1. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 2. Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: wang.yongshi@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 4. Department of Transfusion, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. 6. Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill; Department of Biomedical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. 7. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bicuspid aortic valve, characterized by valve malformation and risk for aortopathy, displays profound alteration in systolic aortic outflow and wall shear stress distribution. The present study performed 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging in patients with bicuspid aortic valve with right-left cusp fusion, focusing on the impact of valve function on hemodynamic status within the ascending aorta. METHODS: Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 50 subjects with right-left bicuspid aortic valve and 15 age- and aortic size-matched controls with tricuspid aortic valve. Patients with bicuspid aortic valve were categorized into 3 groups according to their aortic valve function as follows: bicuspid aortic valve with no more than mild aortic valve dysfunction (bicuspid aortic valve control, n = 20), bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency (n = 15), and bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis (n = 15). RESULTS: All patients with right-left bicuspid aortic valve exhibited peak wall shear stress at the right-anterior position of the ascending aorta (bicuspid aortic valve vs trileaflet aortic valve at the right-anterior position: 0.91 ± 0.23 N/m2 vs 0.43 ± 0.12 N/m2, P < .001) with no distinct alteration between bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency and bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis. The predominance of dilatation involving the tubular ascending aorta (82%, type 2 aortopathy) persisted, with or without valve dysfunction. Compared with bicuspid aortic valve control subjects, the bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency group displayed universally elevated wall shear stress (0.75 ± 0.12 N/m2 vs 0.57 ± 0.09 N/m2, P < .01) in the ascending aorta, which was associated with elevated cardiac stroke volume (P < .05). The bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis group showed elevated flow eccentricity in the form of significantly increased standard deviation of circumferential wall shear stress, which correlated with markedly increased peak aortic valve velocity (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The location of peak aortic wall shear stress and type of aortopathy remained homogeneous among patients with right-left bicuspid aortic valve irrespective of valve dysfunction. Severe aortic insufficiency or stenosis resulted in further elevated aortic wall shear stress and exaggerated flow eccentricity.
OBJECTIVES:Bicuspid aortic valve, characterized by valve malformation and risk for aortopathy, displays profound alteration in systolic aortic outflow and wall shear stress distribution. The present study performed 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging in patients with bicuspid aortic valve with right-left cusp fusion, focusing on the impact of valve function on hemodynamic status within the ascending aorta. METHODS: Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 50 subjects with right-left bicuspid aortic valve and 15 age- and aortic size-matched controls with tricuspid aortic valve. Patients with bicuspid aortic valve were categorized into 3 groups according to their aortic valve function as follows: bicuspid aortic valve with no more than mild aortic valve dysfunction (bicuspid aortic valve control, n = 20), bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency (n = 15), and bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis (n = 15). RESULTS: All patients with right-left bicuspid aortic valve exhibited peak wall shear stress at the right-anterior position of the ascending aorta (bicuspid aortic valve vs trileaflet aortic valve at the right-anterior position: 0.91 ± 0.23 N/m2 vs 0.43 ± 0.12 N/m2, P < .001) with no distinct alteration between bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency and bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis. The predominance of dilatation involving the tubular ascending aorta (82%, type 2 aortopathy) persisted, with or without valve dysfunction. Compared with bicuspid aortic valve control subjects, the bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic insufficiency group displayed universally elevated wall shear stress (0.75 ± 0.12 N/m2 vs 0.57 ± 0.09 N/m2, P < .01) in the ascending aorta, which was associated with elevated cardiac stroke volume (P < .05). The bicuspid aortic valve with severe aortic stenosis group showed elevated flow eccentricity in the form of significantly increased standard deviation of circumferential wall shear stress, which correlated with markedly increased peak aortic valve velocity (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The location of peak aortic wall shear stress and type of aortopathy remained homogeneous among patients with right-left bicuspid aortic valve irrespective of valve dysfunction. Severe aortic insufficiency or stenosis resulted in further elevated aortic wall shear stress and exaggerated flow eccentricity.
Authors: Julio Garcia; Alex J Barker; Ian Murphy; Kelly Jarvis; Susanne Schnell; Jeremy D Collins; James C Carr; S Chris Malaisrie; Michael Markl Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Christian Meierhofer; Eike Philipp Schneider; Christine Lyko; Andrea Hutter; Stefan Martinoff; Michael Markl; Alfred Hager; John Hess; Heiko Stern; Sohrab Fratz Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-12-09 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michael D Hope; Jarrett Wrenn; Monica Sigovan; Elyse Foster; Elaine E Tseng; David Saloner Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Subodh Verma; Bobby Yanagawa; Sameer Kalra; Marc Ruel; Mark D Peterson; Michael H Yamashita; Andrew Fagan; Maria E Currie; Christopher W White; Stephane Leung Wai Sang; Cristian Rosu; Steve Singh; Holly Mewhort; Nandini Gupta; Paul W M Fedak Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Emilie Bollache; David G Guzzardi; Samaneh Sattari; Katherine E Olsen; Elena S Di Martino; S Chris Malaisrie; Pim van Ooij; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Patrick M McCarthy; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker; Paul W M Fedak Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Gilles Soulat; Michael B Scott; Bradley D Allen; Ryan Avery; Robert O Bonow; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick McCarthy; Paul W M Fedak; Alex J Barker; Michael Markl Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-08-18
Authors: Alexander P Nissen; Van Thi Thanh Truong; Bader A Alhafez; Jyothy J Puthumana; Anthony L Estrera; Simon C Body; Siddharth K Prakash Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.209