4.5 Article

A Novel Aortic Regurgitation Model from Cusp Prolapse with Hemodynamic Validation Using an Ex Vivo Left Heart Simulator

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 283-289

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12265-020-10038-z

Keywords

Aortic regurgitation; Cusp prolapse; Porcine model; Left heart simulator

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 HL089315-01]
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program [DGE -1656518]
  3. Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  4. American Heart Association [17POST33410497]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study successfully developed a disease model that mimics human aortic regurgitation by inducing cusp prolapse, allowing for accurate examination of valve biomechanics and surgical repair techniques.
Although ex vivo simulation is a valuable tool for surgical optimization, a disease model that mimics human aortic regurgitation (AR) from cusp prolapse is needed to accurately examine valve biomechanics. To simulate AR, four porcine aortic valves were explanted, and the commissure between the two largest leaflets was detached and re-implanted 5 mm lower to induce cusp prolapse. Four additional valves were tested in their native state as controls. All valves were tested in a heart simulator while hemodynamics, high-speed videography, and echocardiography data were collected. Our AR model successfully reproduced cusp prolapse with significant increase in regurgitant volume compared with that of the controls (23.2 +/- 8.9 versus 2.8 +/- 1.6 ml, p = 0.017). Hemodynamics data confirmed the simulation of physiologic disease conditions. Echocardiography and color flow mapping demonstrated the presence of mild to moderate eccentric regurgitation in our AR model. This novel AR model has enormous potential in the evaluation of valve biomechanics and surgical repair techniques.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available