Stefaan Bouchez1, Frank Timmermans2, Tine Philipsen3, Katrien François3, Thierry Bové3. 1. Department of Cardiac Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Gent, Gent, Belgium. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Gent, Gent, Belgium. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital of Gent, Gent, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The choice of annuloplasty device is fundamental at the time of mitral valve repair, the goal being to optimally restore the physiological 3-dimensional (3D) structure and dynamics of the mitral annulus (MA). This study evaluated MA dynamics after annuloplasty with 2 different semi-rigid devices. METHODS: Thirty-three patients eligible for mitral valve repair were selected for annuloplasty with the Physio II ring (Edwards Lifesciences, Irving, CA, USA) (n = 17) or the Memo 3D ring (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) (n = 16). MA dynamics were assessed with transoesophageal 3D echocardiography intraoperatively and 1 year after repair. RESULTS: The postoperative changes in the anteroposterior diameter {3.7% [standard deviation (SD) 2.7] vs 1.9% [SD 1.3]; P = 0.013} and in the annular height [27.7% (SD 8.7) vs 18.0% (SD 13.9); P = 0.003] were significantly larger with the Memo 3D ring during the cardiac cycle. The restoration of the saddle shape at baseline was superior with the Physio II ring, defined by a larger systolic annular height-to-commissural width ratio [15.1% (SD 2.3) vs 7.1% (SD 2.4); P < 0.001]. These observations of MA dynamics were sustained after 1 year, shown by a greater anteroposterior extension [5.1% (SD 1.0) vs 1.7% (SD 1.6); P = 0.002] and change in annular height-to-commissural width ratio [15.7% (SD 12.7) vs 3.1% (SD 3.0); P = 0.020] for the Memo 3D ring. There were no significant differences in mitral valve function between the 2 devices. CONCLUSIONS: The MA dynamics after annuloplasty with the Physio II and Memo 3D rings demonstrated a better systolic 3D restoration of the saddle shape with the Physio II ring, whereas the saddle-shaped geometry improved significantly with the Memo 3D ring, as a dynamic phenomenon. The Memo 3D ring also showed increased anteroposterior annular mobility and folding dynamics throughout the cardiac cycle. Moreover, the observed differences in MA dynamics between both devices appeared to be sustainable 1 year after ring implantation.
OBJECTIVES: The choice of annuloplasty device is fundamental at the time of mitral valve repair, the goal being to optimally restore the physiological 3-dimensional (3D) structure and dynamics of the mitral annulus (MA). This study evaluated MA dynamics after annuloplasty with 2 different semi-rigid devices. METHODS: Thirty-three patients eligible for mitral valve repair were selected for annuloplasty with the Physio II ring (Edwards Lifesciences, Irving, CA, USA) (n = 17) or the Memo 3D ring (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) (n = 16). MA dynamics were assessed with transoesophageal 3D echocardiography intraoperatively and 1 year after repair. RESULTS: The postoperative changes in the anteroposterior diameter {3.7% [standard deviation (SD) 2.7] vs 1.9% [SD 1.3]; P = 0.013} and in the annular height [27.7% (SD 8.7) vs 18.0% (SD 13.9); P = 0.003] were significantly larger with the Memo 3D ring during the cardiac cycle. The restoration of the saddle shape at baseline was superior with the Physio II ring, defined by a larger systolic annular height-to-commissural width ratio [15.1% (SD 2.3) vs 7.1% (SD 2.4); P < 0.001]. These observations of MA dynamics were sustained after 1 year, shown by a greater anteroposterior extension [5.1% (SD 1.0) vs 1.7% (SD 1.6); P = 0.002] and change in annular height-to-commissural width ratio [15.7% (SD 12.7) vs 3.1% (SD 3.0); P = 0.020] for the Memo 3D ring. There were no significant differences in mitral valve function between the 2 devices. CONCLUSIONS: The MA dynamics after annuloplasty with the Physio II and Memo 3D rings demonstrated a better systolic 3D restoration of the saddle shape with the Physio II ring, whereas the saddle-shaped geometry improved significantly with the Memo 3D ring, as a dynamic phenomenon. The Memo 3D ring also showed increased anteroposterior annular mobility and folding dynamics throughout the cardiac cycle. Moreover, the observed differences in MA dynamics between both devices appeared to be sustainable 1 year after ring implantation.