Literature DB >> 31427066

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Are We Able to Improve Hemodynamic Outcome?

Pavlo Yevtushenko1, Florian Hellmeier1, Jan Bruening1, Sarah Nordmeyer2, Volkmar Falk3, Christoph Knosalla3, Marcus Kelm2, Titus Kuehne4, Leonid Goubergrits5.   

Abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) does not usually restore physiological flow profiles. Complex flow profiles are associated with aorta dilatation, ventricle remodeling, aneurysms, and development of atherosclerosis. All these affect long-term morbidity and often require reoperations. In this pilot study, we aim to investigate an ability to optimize the real surgical AVR procedure toward flow profile associated with healthy persons. Four cases of surgical AVR (two with biological and two with mechanical valve prosthesis) with available post-treatment cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including four-dimensional flow MRI and showing abnormal complex post-treatment hemodynamics, were investigated. All cases feature complex hemodynamic outcomes associated with valve-jet eccentricity and strong secondary flow characterized by helical flow and recirculation regions. A commercial computational fluid dynamics solver was used to simulate peak systolic hemodynamics of the real post-treatment outcome using patient-specific MRI measured boundary conditions. Then, an attempt to optimize hemodynamic outcome by modifying valve size and orientation as well as ascending aorta size reduction was made. Pressure drop, wall shear stress, secondary flow degree, helicity, maximal velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy were evaluated to characterize the AVR hemodynamic outcome. The proposed optimization strategy was successful in three of four cases investigated. Although no single parameter was identified as the sole predictor for a successful flow optimization, downsizing of the ascending aorta in combination with the valve orientation was the most effective optimization approach. Simulations promise to become an effective tool to predict hemodynamic outcome. The translation of these tools requires, however, studies with a larger cohort of patients followed by a prospective clinical validation study.
Copyright © 2019 Biophysical Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31427066      PMCID: PMC6990150          DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.07.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biophys J        ISSN: 0006-3495            Impact factor:   4.033


  34 in total

1.  Shape optimization in steady blood flow: a numerical study of non-Newtonian effects.

Authors:  Feby Abraham; Marek Behr; Matthias Heinkenschloss
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 1.763

2.  Outcomes and survival with aortic valve replacement compared with medical therapy in patients with low-, moderate-, and severe-gradient severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction.

Authors:  Robert N Belkin; Omar Khalique; Wilbert S Aronow; Chul Ahn; Mala Sharma
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 1.724

3.  2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Rick A Nishimura; Catherine M Otto; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Robert A Guyton; Patrick T O'Gara; Carlos E Ruiz; Nikolaos J Skubas; Paul Sorajja; Thoralf M Sundt; James D Thomas
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Bicuspid aortic valve disease and ascending aortic aneurysm: should an aortic root replacement be mandatory?†.

Authors:  Igor Vendramin; Matteo Meneguzzi; Sandro Sponga; Laura Deroma; Rossella Cimarosti; Cristina Lutman; Cristian Daffarra; Ugolino Livi
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Simulation of personalised haemodynamics by various mounting positions of a prosthetic valve using computational fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Markus Bongert; Marius Geller; Werner Pennekamp; Volkmar Nicolas
Journal:  Biomed Tech (Berl)       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 1.411

6.  MRI-based computational fluid dynamics for diagnosis and treatment prediction: clinical validation study in patients with coarctation of aorta.

Authors:  Leonid Goubergrits; Eugenie Riesenkampff; Pavlo Yevtushenko; Jens Schaller; Ulrich Kertzscher; Anja Hennemuth; Felix Berger; Stephan Schubert; Titus Kuehne
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Bicuspid aortic cusp fusion morphology alters aortic three-dimensional outflow patterns, wall shear stress, and expression of aortopathy.

Authors:  Riti Mahadevia; Alex J Barker; Susanne Schnell; Pegah Entezari; Preeti Kansal; Paul W M Fedak; S Chris Malaisrie; Patrick McCarthy; Jeremy Collins; James Carr; Michael Markl
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  From unicuspid to quadricuspid: influence of aortic valve morphology on aortic three-dimensional hemodynamics.

Authors:  Pegah Entezari; Susanne Schnell; Riti Mahadevia; Chris Malaisrie; Patrick McCarthy; Marla Mendelson; Jeremy Collins; James C Carr; Michael Markl; Alex J Barker
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Blood flow characteristics in the ascending aorta after TAVI compared to surgical aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Ralf Felix Trauzeddel; Ulrike Löbe; Alex J Barker; Carmen Gelsinger; Christian Butter; Michael Markl; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 10.  The modern epidemiology of heart valve disease.

Authors:  Sean Coffey; Benjamin J Cairns; Bernard Iung
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 5.994

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Heart by Numbers.

Authors:  Kenneth S Campbell; Daniel A Beard; Zhilin Qu
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 4.033

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.