| Literature DB >> 34977730 |
Michael J Paulsen1, Mateo Marin Cuartas1, Annabel Imbrie-Moore1,2, Hanjay Wang1, Robert Wilkerson1, Justin Farry1, Yuanjia Zhu1,3, Michael Ma1, John W MacArthur1, Y Joseph Woo1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve repair is the gold standard treatment for degenerative mitral regurgitation; however, a multitude of repair techniques exist with little quantitative data comparing these approaches. Using a novel ex vivo model, we sought to evaluate biomechanical differences between repair techniques.Entities:
Keywords: 3D, 3-dimensional; FBG, Fiber Bragg Grating; MR, mitral regurgitation; biomechanics; chordae forces; ex vivo model; leaflet remodeling; leaflet resection; mitral valve repair; neochord
Year: 2021 PMID: 34977730 PMCID: PMC8691825 DOI: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.09.040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JTCVS Tech ISSN: 2666-2507
Figure 1A, Schematic of the Stanford left heart simulator in the mitral testing configuration with each component labeled. B, Close-up view of FBG force sensor attached to a chordae tendinea of interest. PL, Posterior leaflet; AL, anterior leaflet; TEE, transesophageal echo; APM, anterolateral papillary muscle; FBG, fiber Bragg Gratings; PPM, posteromedial papillary muscle.
Figure 2En face view of each valve at baseline, after induction of prolapse, and after each repair technique during mid-systole demonstrating leaflet coaptation differences among each technique.
Hemodynamic parameters and chordae forces
| Baseline | Edge-to-edge | Remodeling | Resection | Neochord | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean gradient (mm Hg) | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 2.0 ± 2.1 | 1.7 ± 2.4 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 1.0 ± 0.8 | .23 |
| Peak gradient (mm Hg) | 5.9 ± 2.8 | 9.8 ± 7.1 | 6.2 ± 3.5 | 6.3 ± 3.0 | 4.9 ± 1.1 | .16 |
| Mean arterial pressure (mm Hg) | 100.0 ± 1.1 | 92.9 ± 7.1 | 103.0 ± 6.9 | 102.0 ± 3.4 | 101.0 ± 8.3 | |
| Systolic pressure (mm Hg) | 120.0 ± 2.6 | 111.0 ± 7.8 | 122.0 ± 7.1 | 122.0 ± 2.9 | 120.0 ± 9.5 | |
| Diastolic pressure (mm Hg) | 81.7 ± 2.0 | 76.0 ± 6.4 | 84.1 ± 7.4 | 83.3 ± 4.9 | 83.5 ± 7.7 | |
| Mean atrial pressure (mm Hg) | 8.8 ± 1.5 | 10.0 ± 1.5 | 9.8 ± 2.0 | 8.9 ± 2.4 | 9.4 ± 1.5 | .33 |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 70.0 ± 0.0 | 70.0 ± 0.0 | 70.0 ± 0.0 | 70.0 ± 0.0 | 70.0 ± 0.0 | - |
| Pump stroke volume (mL) | 110.0 ± 0.2 | 110.0 ± 0.1 | 110.0 ± 0.2 | 110.0 ± 0.2 | 110.0 ± 0.2 | - |
| Mitral cardiac output (L/min) | 4.8 ± 0.3 | 4.1 ± 0.4 | 4.7 ± 0.2 | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 4.7 ± 0.2 | |
| Mitral forward volume (mL) | 75.5 ± 5.5 | 75.2 ± 6.6 | 76.4 ± 5.8 | 75.2 ± 2.6 | 77.3 ± 5.5 | .84 |
| Mitral closing volume (mL) | 8.6 ± 2.9 | 9.9 ± 3.9 | 8.7 ± 2.8 | 8.9 ± 3.0 | 8.9 ± 3.4 | |
| Mitral leakage volume (mL) | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 7.2 ± 2.9 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 2.2 ± 1.6 | 1.7 ± 1.4 | |
| Regurgitant fraction (%) | 11.9 ± 3.7 | 22.5 ± 6.9 | 12.3 ± 3.0 | 14.7 ± 5.5 | 13.4 ± 4.8 | |
| Mitral orifice area (cm2) | 6.4 ± 3.3 | 4.8 ± 2.6 | 6.1 ± 2.9 | 6.1 ± 3.1 | 6.1 ± 1.9 | .62 |
Data presented as summarized marginal means ± standard deviation in that they are unconditional over the experimental settings. Sample size n = 7. P values refer to partial F-statistics for repair technique from the analysis of variance for the given outcome's fixed effect model. Note that the symbol “-” is used for P values for outcomes that are structurally deterministic. Bold denotes P ≤ .05.
Figure 3A, Regurgitant fraction is significantly higher in the edge-to-edge (E) group relative to the other repair techniques when normalized to baseline values (P < .01 for each). B, Primary chordae forces relative to baseline are significantly higher in the edge-to-edge technique versus the neochord technique (P = .002). The resection technique also results in higher primary chordae forces when compared with the neochord (P = .001) and nonrsectional remodeling (P = .04) techniques. C, Secondary chordae forces relative to baseline forces were significantly elevated after edge-to-edge repair versus neochord repair (P = .03) and nonresectional remodeling techniques (P = .02), whereas the other repair techniques resulted in similar secondary chordae forces compared with baseline levels. NC, Neochord; NR, nonresectional remodeling; R, resection. The P values refer to post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction from the mixed model.