Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing

John D. Cleveland, Michael E. Bowdish, Carol E. Eberhardt, Wendy J. Mack, James A. Crabtree, Thomas A. Vassiliades, Alan M. Speir, Yogesh A. Darekar, Amy E. Hackmann, Vaughn A. Starnes, Robbin G. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch drives most surgeons to select the largest bioprosthesis possible during aortic valve replacement, but interactions between the native aortic annulus and valve prosthesis remain poorly defined. We examined the hemodynamic and functional consequences of oversizing contemporary bioprostheses in an in vitro model. Methods Three sizes each (21, 23, and 25 mm) of 5 aortic bioprostheses (Magna, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA; Trifecta and Epic, St. Jude, St. Paul, MN; and Mosaic and Hancock II, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were tested on a mock annulus in a pulsatile aortic simulator. After the annulus was sized to match each valve, the annulus was decreased by 3 mm and then by 6 mm to simulate oversizing. We measured the effective orifice area and the mean pressure gradient. Changes in prosthetic leaflet behavior and geometric orifice area were assessed with slow-motion video. Statistical analysis used mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data, allowing comparison within and between groups. Results For each valve model and size, oversizing resulted in decreased effective orifice areas and geometric orifice areas and increased pressure gradients. This was more pronounced with smaller valve sizes and higher flow rates but varied between valve types. Slow-motion imaging revealed this change in geometric orifice area was a result of an inward shift of the valve leaflet hinge point. Conclusions Bioprosthetic oversizing impairs hemodynamic performance of aortic valve bioprostheses. The magnitude of this effect varies by valve model and size. Clinically, these data suggest that during aortic valve replacement, placing a valve whose internal orifice closely matches the aortic annulus will provide the optimal hemodynamic performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1866-1876
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Thoracic Surgery
Volume103
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bioprosthesis
Aortic Valve
Hemodynamics
Pressure
Prostheses and Implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Cleveland, J. D., Bowdish, M. E., Eberhardt, C. E., Mack, W. J., Crabtree, J. A., Vassiliades, T. A., ... Cohen, R. G. (2017). Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 103(6), 1866-1876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019

Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing. / Cleveland, John D.; Bowdish, Michael E.; Eberhardt, Carol E.; Mack, Wendy J.; Crabtree, James A.; Vassiliades, Thomas A.; Speir, Alan M.; Darekar, Yogesh A.; Hackmann, Amy E.; Starnes, Vaughn A.; Cohen, Robbin G.

In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 103, No. 6, 06.2017, p. 1866-1876.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cleveland, JD, Bowdish, ME, Eberhardt, CE, Mack, WJ, Crabtree, JA, Vassiliades, TA, Speir, AM, Darekar, YA, Hackmann, AE, Starnes, VA & Cohen, RG 2017, 'Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing', Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 1866-1876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019
Cleveland JD, Bowdish ME, Eberhardt CE, Mack WJ, Crabtree JA, Vassiliades TA et al. Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017 Jun;103(6):1866-1876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019
Cleveland, John D. ; Bowdish, Michael E. ; Eberhardt, Carol E. ; Mack, Wendy J. ; Crabtree, James A. ; Vassiliades, Thomas A. ; Speir, Alan M. ; Darekar, Yogesh A. ; Hackmann, Amy E. ; Starnes, Vaughn A. ; Cohen, Robbin G. / Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing. In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 103, No. 6. pp. 1866-1876.
@article{dcb9bd5ee8844b0284f94af95cbc7dc0,
title = "Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing",
abstract = "Background The risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch drives most surgeons to select the largest bioprosthesis possible during aortic valve replacement, but interactions between the native aortic annulus and valve prosthesis remain poorly defined. We examined the hemodynamic and functional consequences of oversizing contemporary bioprostheses in an in vitro model. Methods Three sizes each (21, 23, and 25 mm) of 5 aortic bioprostheses (Magna, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA; Trifecta and Epic, St. Jude, St. Paul, MN; and Mosaic and Hancock II, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were tested on a mock annulus in a pulsatile aortic simulator. After the annulus was sized to match each valve, the annulus was decreased by 3 mm and then by 6 mm to simulate oversizing. We measured the effective orifice area and the mean pressure gradient. Changes in prosthetic leaflet behavior and geometric orifice area were assessed with slow-motion video. Statistical analysis used mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data, allowing comparison within and between groups. Results For each valve model and size, oversizing resulted in decreased effective orifice areas and geometric orifice areas and increased pressure gradients. This was more pronounced with smaller valve sizes and higher flow rates but varied between valve types. Slow-motion imaging revealed this change in geometric orifice area was a result of an inward shift of the valve leaflet hinge point. Conclusions Bioprosthetic oversizing impairs hemodynamic performance of aortic valve bioprostheses. The magnitude of this effect varies by valve model and size. Clinically, these data suggest that during aortic valve replacement, placing a valve whose internal orifice closely matches the aortic annulus will provide the optimal hemodynamic performance.",
author = "Cleveland, {John D.} and Bowdish, {Michael E.} and Eberhardt, {Carol E.} and Mack, {Wendy J.} and Crabtree, {James A.} and Vassiliades, {Thomas A.} and Speir, {Alan M.} and Darekar, {Yogesh A.} and Hackmann, {Amy E.} and Starnes, {Vaughn A.} and Cohen, {Robbin G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "1866--1876",
journal = "Annals of Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "0003-4975",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of Hemodynamic Performance of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in a Model of Oversizing

AU - Cleveland, John D.

AU - Bowdish, Michael E.

AU - Eberhardt, Carol E.

AU - Mack, Wendy J.

AU - Crabtree, James A.

AU - Vassiliades, Thomas A.

AU - Speir, Alan M.

AU - Darekar, Yogesh A.

AU - Hackmann, Amy E.

AU - Starnes, Vaughn A.

AU - Cohen, Robbin G.

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - Background The risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch drives most surgeons to select the largest bioprosthesis possible during aortic valve replacement, but interactions between the native aortic annulus and valve prosthesis remain poorly defined. We examined the hemodynamic and functional consequences of oversizing contemporary bioprostheses in an in vitro model. Methods Three sizes each (21, 23, and 25 mm) of 5 aortic bioprostheses (Magna, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA; Trifecta and Epic, St. Jude, St. Paul, MN; and Mosaic and Hancock II, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were tested on a mock annulus in a pulsatile aortic simulator. After the annulus was sized to match each valve, the annulus was decreased by 3 mm and then by 6 mm to simulate oversizing. We measured the effective orifice area and the mean pressure gradient. Changes in prosthetic leaflet behavior and geometric orifice area were assessed with slow-motion video. Statistical analysis used mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data, allowing comparison within and between groups. Results For each valve model and size, oversizing resulted in decreased effective orifice areas and geometric orifice areas and increased pressure gradients. This was more pronounced with smaller valve sizes and higher flow rates but varied between valve types. Slow-motion imaging revealed this change in geometric orifice area was a result of an inward shift of the valve leaflet hinge point. Conclusions Bioprosthetic oversizing impairs hemodynamic performance of aortic valve bioprostheses. The magnitude of this effect varies by valve model and size. Clinically, these data suggest that during aortic valve replacement, placing a valve whose internal orifice closely matches the aortic annulus will provide the optimal hemodynamic performance.

AB - Background The risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch drives most surgeons to select the largest bioprosthesis possible during aortic valve replacement, but interactions between the native aortic annulus and valve prosthesis remain poorly defined. We examined the hemodynamic and functional consequences of oversizing contemporary bioprostheses in an in vitro model. Methods Three sizes each (21, 23, and 25 mm) of 5 aortic bioprostheses (Magna, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA; Trifecta and Epic, St. Jude, St. Paul, MN; and Mosaic and Hancock II, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were tested on a mock annulus in a pulsatile aortic simulator. After the annulus was sized to match each valve, the annulus was decreased by 3 mm and then by 6 mm to simulate oversizing. We measured the effective orifice area and the mean pressure gradient. Changes in prosthetic leaflet behavior and geometric orifice area were assessed with slow-motion video. Statistical analysis used mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data, allowing comparison within and between groups. Results For each valve model and size, oversizing resulted in decreased effective orifice areas and geometric orifice areas and increased pressure gradients. This was more pronounced with smaller valve sizes and higher flow rates but varied between valve types. Slow-motion imaging revealed this change in geometric orifice area was a result of an inward shift of the valve leaflet hinge point. Conclusions Bioprosthetic oversizing impairs hemodynamic performance of aortic valve bioprostheses. The magnitude of this effect varies by valve model and size. Clinically, these data suggest that during aortic valve replacement, placing a valve whose internal orifice closely matches the aortic annulus will provide the optimal hemodynamic performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010622294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010622294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019

DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.10.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 28131425

AN - SCOPUS:85010622294

VL - 103

SP - 1866

EP - 1876

JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery

SN - 0003-4975

IS - 6

ER -