4.6 Article

Increased Ascending Aortic Wall Stress in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 92, Issue 4, Pages 1384-1389

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.04.118

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. McCabe Fund, Philadelphia, PA
  2. National Institutes of Health [F32 HL099172-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are at increased risk of ascending aortic dilatation, dissection, and rupture. We hypothesized that ascending aortic wall stress may be increased in patients with BAV compared with patients with tricuspid aortic valves (TAV). Methods. Twenty patients with BAV and 20 patients with TAV underwent electrocardiogram-gated computed tomographic angiography. Patients were matched for diameter. The thoracic aorta was segmented, reconstructed, and triangulated to create a mesh. Utilizing a uniform pressure load of 120 mm Hg, and isotropic, incompressible, and linear elastic shell elements, finite element analysis was performed to predict 99th percentile wall stress. Results. For patients with BAV and TAV, aortic root diameter was 4.0 +/- 0.6 cm and 4.0 +/- 0.6 cm (p = 0.724), sinotubular junction diameter was 3.6 +/- 0.8 cm and 3.6 +/- 0.7 cm (p = 0.736), and maximum ascending aortic diameter was 4.0 +/- 0.8 cm and 4.1 +/- 0.9 cm (p = 0.849), respectively. The mean 99th percentile wall stress in the BAV group was greater than in the TAV group (0.54 +/- 0.06 MPa vs 0.50 +/- 0.09 MPa), though this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.090). When normalized by radius, the 99th percentile wall stress was greater in the BAV group (0.31 +/- 0.06 MPa/cm vs 0.27 +/- 0.03 MPa/cm, p = 0.013). Conclusions. Patients with BAV, regardless of aortic diameter, have increased 99th percentile wall stress in the ascending aorta. Ascending aortic three-dimensional geometry may account in part for the increased propensity to aortic dilatation, rupture, and dissection in patients with BAV. (Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92:1384-90) (C) 2011 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available