| Literature DB >> 34124206 |
Hail B Kazik1, Harkamaljot S Kandail2, John F LaDisa1,3,4, Joy Lincoln4,5.
Abstract
Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is a congenital defect affecting 1-2% of the general population that is distinguished from the normal tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) by the existence of two, rather than three, functional leaflets (or cusps). BAV presents in different morphologic phenotypes based on the configuration of cusp fusion. The most common phenotypes are Type 1 (containing one raphe), where fusion between right coronary and left coronary cusps (BAV R/L) is the most common configuration followed by fusion between right coronary and non-coronary cusps (BAV R/NC). While anatomically different, BAV R/L and BAV R/NC configurations are both associated with abnormal hemodynamic and biomechanical environments. The natural history of BAV has shown that it is not necessarily the primary structural malformation that enforces the need for treatment in young adults, but the secondary onset of premature calcification in ~50% of BAV patients, that can lead to aortic stenosis. While an underlying genetic basis is a major pathogenic contributor of the structural malformation, recent studies have implemented computational models, cardiac imaging studies, and bench-top methods to reveal BAV-associated hemodynamic and biomechanical alterations that likely contribute to secondary complications. Contributions to the field, however, lack support for a direct link between the external valvular environment and calcific aortic valve disease in the setting of BAV R/L and R/NC BAV. Here we review the literature of BAV hemodynamics and biomechanics and discuss its previously proposed contribution to calcification. We also offer means to improve upon previous studies in order to further characterize BAV and its secondary complications.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanic; calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD); fluid-structure interaction simulation; hemodynamic; wall shear stress
Year: 2021 PMID: 34124206 PMCID: PMC8187581 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.677977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Aortic valve cusp structure. A cross-sectional view of a normal TAV (center). Each valve cusp is comprised of a highly organized ECM (right) stratified into three layers: a collagen-dense fibrosa layer (aortic side), an elastin-rich ventricularis layer (ventricular side), and a spongiosa layer sandwiched in-between comprised mostly of proteoglycans. VICs are situated within the core of each cusp and maintain ECM synthesis and homeostasis. VECs form a protective monolayer encapsulating the entire cusp. A flattened perspective of a single aortic valve cusp (left) illustrates the locations of the tip, belly, and attachment regions. TAV, tricuspid aortic valve; ECM, extracellular matrix; VICs, valve interstitial cells; VECs, valve endothelial cells.
Figure 2Morphologic phenotypes in BAV. The configuration of a normal TAV is shown compared to three configurations of BAV Type 1 (one fibrous raphe). BAV R/L is the fusion between the R and L coronary cusps and is the most common, accounting for 80% of Type 1. BAV R/NC is the fusion between the R and NC cusps (occurring in 17% of Type 1 cases), and BAV L/NC is the fusion the between L and NC cusps (~1%). BAV, bicuspid aortic valve; R, right; L, left; NC, non-coronary.
Figure 3Hemodynamic Influences on Valvular Performance in BAV. A normal TAV features a centrally-aligned velocity jet through the valve orifice at physiologic magnitudes (1.1 to 2.3 m/s, minimum velocity range). Symmetrical vortices form in the cusp sinus of TAV which lead to synchronous closure of valve cusps. BAV R/L and BAV R/NC configurations have skewed velocity jets with magnitudes of 2.0 to 5.0 m/s (maximum velocity range) through the valve orifice due to asymmetric cusp geometry and impaired mobility of the fused cusp (28, 29, 32, 51–53). This is directed toward the right anterior wall of the AAo in BAV R/L and toward the right posterior AAo wall in BAV R/NC. Asymmetrical vortex formation leads to a smaller, faster vortex in the non-fused cusp sinus and a larger, slower vortex in the fused cusp sinus that extends further into the AAo (36–38, 40, 41, 47). AAo, ascending aorta; BAV, bicuspid aortic valve; R, right; L, left; NC, non-coronary.
Summary of hemodynamic and biomechanical influences in TAV, BAV R/L, and BAV R/NC.
| Valve Orifice Shape/Size | Circular, round orifice, large valve opening area | Elliptical, clamshell-shaped orifice, reduced opening area | Elliptical, clamshell-shaped orifice, reduced opening area | ( |
| Systolic Jet Velocity/Direction | Centrally-aligned velocity jet at physiologic magnitudes | High velocity jet skewed towardz right-anterior wall of AAo | High velocity skewed towardz right-posterior wall AAo | ( |
| Vortex and Helical Structures | Symmetrical vortical structures in cusp sinuses Absence of abnormal helical flow downstream in AAo | Larger, low velocity vortex in fused cusp sinus; smaller, high velocity vortex in non-fused sinus Right-handed helical flow in AAo | Larger, low velocity vortex in fused cusp sinus; smaller, high velocity vortex in non-fused sinus Left-handed helical flow in AAo | ( |
| Cusp Wall Shear Stress (WSS) | High magnitude & unidirectional WSS on ventricularis Low magnitude & oscillatory WSS on fibrosa Magnitude gradually decreases from tip to attachment region | High magnitude & unidirectional WSS on ventricularis of fused and non-fused cusps Elevated WSS on non-fused cusp fibrosa; Sub-physiologic WSS on fused cusp fibrosa | ( | |
| Stress/Strain | Cusp stretch and strain are greatest during diastole and in the radial direction High strain along tip region and high von Mises stress along attachment and commissural region | Increased radial strain on fused cusp while circumferential strain is similar to TAV High principal stress on the fused leaflet in attachment and commissural region | ( | |
TAV, tricuspid aortic valve; BAV, bicuspid aortic valve; R, right coronary; L, left coronary; NC, noncoronary; AAo, ascending aorta.
Limited data to support conclusions.
Summary of WSS and Stretch/Strain dependent marker expression in TAV and BAV.
| Inflammatory Paracrine Signaling | Altered WSS on fibrosa, but not the ventricularis upregulates TGF-β1 & BMP-2 Simultaneous exposure of ventricularis and fibrosa to BAV fused cusp WSS upregulates TGF-β1 & BMP-4 | ↑ BMP-2, BMP-4 expression with higher cusp stretch; preferentially expressed on fibrosa vs. ventricularis | ( |
| Endothelial Activation | ICAM & VCAM are upregulated on fibrosa, but not ventricularis when exposed to altered WSS Simultaneous exposure of ventricularis and fibrosa to BAV fused cusp WSS upregulates ICAM & VCAM | ↑ expression of VCAM-1, ICAM-1, & E-selectin in VECs when exposed to sub-physiologic and supraphysiologic strain↑ expression of VCAM-1 in VICs when exposed to sub-physiologic strain | ( |
| ECM Remodeling | Exposure to BAV fused cusp WSS upregulates MMP-2, MMP-9, Cathepsin L, and Cathepsin S | ↑ expression of MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-9, cathepsin K, cathepsin S and ↓ expression of cathepsin L in response to higher cusp stretch | ( |
| Osteoblast-like Differentiation | Elevated osteocalcin on fibrosa upon exposure to BAV fused cusp WSS | ↑ Runx2 expression at higher cusp stretch, preferentially on fibrosa | ( |
| NO Signaling | ↑ eNOS expression on ventricularis (high magnitude & unidirectional WSS) vs. fibrosa (low & oscillatory) | ( |
No known reported data to support conclusions.
WSS, wall shear stress; BAV, bicuspid aortic valve; ECM, extracellular matrix; VECs, valve endothelial cells; VICs, valve interstitial cells; NO, nitric oxide; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase; BMP, bone morphogenic protein; TGF-β, transforming growth factor beta; ICAM, intercellular cell adhesion molecule; VCAM, vascular cell adhesion molecule.