Benedik Jaroslav, Dohle Daniel S, Wendt Daniel, Pilarczyk Kevin, Price Vivien, Mourad Fanar, Zykina Elizaveta, Stebner Ferdinand, Tsagakis Konstantinos, Jakob Heinz
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, West-German Heart Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, West-German Heart Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 Dec;46(6):e89-93. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu358. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
A bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is commonly associated with aortic wall abnormalities, including dilatation of the ascending aorta and increased potential for aortic dissection. We compared the mechanical properties of the aortic wall of BAV patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) and regurgitation (AR) using a dissectometer, a device mimicking transverse aortic wall shear stress.
Between March 2010 and February 2013, 85 consecutive patients with bicuspid aortic valve undergoing open aortic valve replacement at our institution were prospectively enrolled, presenting either with stenosis (Group 1, n = 58) or regurgitation (Group 2, n = 27). Aortic wall cohesion measured by the dissectometer (Parameters P7, P8 and P9), aortic diameters measured by transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) and thickness of the wall were compared. One patient presenting with the Marfan syndrome was excluded from the study.
Patients with aortic regurgitation were significantly younger (48.2 ± 15.8 vs 64.7 ± 10.7, P < 0.001), and had a significantly thicker aortic wall (2.30 ± 0.49 mm vs 2.06 ± 0.35 mm, P = 0.029). Transoesophageal echocardiography diameters (annulus, aortic sinuses and sinotubular junction) were significantly larger in the AR group (27.3 ± 3.6 vs 25.5 ± 2.4, P = 0.008; 41.1 ± 7.7 vs 36.7 ± 8.0, P = 0.011; 37.6 ± 9.7 vs 33.8 ± 9.1, P = 0.049). The ascending aortic diameter did not differ (43.2 ± 10.6 vs 40.3 ± 9.1, P = 0.292). Patients with AR had significantly worse aortic cohesion, as measured by shear stress testing (P7: 97.2 ± 45.0 vs 145.5 ± 84.9, P = 0.015; P8: 2.00 ± 0.65 vs 3.82 ± 1.56, P < 0.001; P9: 2.96 ± 0.82 vs 4.98 ± 1.80, P < 0.001) compared with those with AS.
We observed significantly worse aortic wall cohesion, a thicker aortic wall and a larger aortic root in patients presenting with bicuspid AR compared with patients with AS. These results suggest that bicuspid AR represents a different disease process with possible involvement of the ascending aorta, as demonstrated by dissectometer examination.
二叶式主动脉瓣(BAV)通常与主动脉壁异常相关,包括升主动脉扩张和主动脉夹层形成风险增加。我们使用一种模拟主动脉壁横向剪切应力的解剖仪,比较了患有主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)和反流(AR)的BAV患者的主动脉壁力学性能。
2010年3月至2013年2月期间,我们前瞻性纳入了85例在我院接受主动脉瓣置换术的连续二叶式主动脉瓣患者,其中表现为狭窄的患者为第1组(n = 58),表现为反流的患者为第2组(n = 27)。比较了用解剖仪测量的主动脉壁黏附力(参数P7、P8和P9)、经食管超声心动图(TOE)测量的主动脉直径和主动脉壁厚度。1例患有马凡综合征的患者被排除在研究之外。
主动脉反流患者明显更年轻(48.2±15.8岁对64.7±10.7岁,P<0.001),且主动脉壁明显更厚(2.30±0.49mm对2.06±0.35mm,P = 0.029)。AR组的经食管超声心动图测量的直径(瓣环、主动脉窦和窦管交界)明显更大(27.3±3.6对25.5±2.4,P = 0.008;41.1±7.7对36.7±8.0,P = 0.011;37.6±9.7对33.8±9.1,P = 0.049)。升主动脉直径无差异(43.2±10.6对40.3±9.1,P = 0.292)。通过剪切应力测试测量,AR患者的主动脉黏附力明显更差(P7:97.2±45.0对145.5±84.9,P = 0.015;P8:2.00±0.65对3.82±1.56,P<0.001;P9:2.96±0.82对4.98±1.80,P<0.001),与AS患者相比。
我们观察到,与AS患者相比,患有二叶式AR的患者主动脉壁黏附力明显更差,主动脉壁更厚,主动脉根部更大。这些结果表明,二叶式AR代表了一种不同的疾病过程,可能累及升主动脉,解剖仪检查证实了这一点。