Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2012 > Volume 21 Number 2 March 2012 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Aortic Root Distensibility after Subcoronary Stentless Valve Implantation

Aortic Root Distensibility after Subcoronary Stentless Valve Implantation

Jonas A. Funder, Markus W. Frost, Kaj-Erik Klaaborg, Per Wierup, Vibeke Hjortdal, Hans Nygaard, J. Michael Hasenkam

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark

Background and aim of the study: The preservation of aortic root dynamics is considered important for the durability of aortic valve bioprostheses. Stentless heart valves are believed to support physiologic biomechanics. To date, dynamic analysis has been limited to the full root prosthesis, and exclusively in the radial direction. The study aim was to investigate and compare the radial and longitudinal aortic root distensibilities of subcoronary stentless valves, and of stented and native pig valves.
Methods: Stented pericardial (Mitroflow) or stentless (Solo, Toronto SPV) valve prostheses, or native porcine valves, were investigated in 32 pigs. Postoperatively, 12 sonomicrometry crystals were placed on the aortic root in order to measure aortic root distensibility, in both radial and longitudinal directions.
Results: Sonomicrometry data were obtained from 23 pigs (72%). At the annular level, the native and Solo valves were significantly more distensible in a radial direction than the Mitroflow valve (p = 0.04). However, at the level of the sinotubular junction (STJ), commissures and aorta, the native valve was

significantly more distensible than all of the artificial valves (p = 0.006, p = 0.006, and p = 0.02, respectively). The Solo valve exhibited less longitudinal distensibility than the Toronto SPV and Mitroflow valves. The Toronto SPV initiated a radial expansion at the STJ significantly later in the cardiac cycle than did both the Solo and native valves (p = 0.03), but showed no difference compared to the Mitroflow valve. Longitudinal expansion between the annulus and the STJ started significantly earlier for the Solo valve than for both the Toronto SPV (p = 0.03) and Mitroflow (p = 0.02) valves.
Conclusion: The Solo valve proved to be superior in maintaining annular distensibility immediately following implantation when compared to the Mitroflow valve. The Solo valve did not, however, preserve longitudinal distensibility as well as the other investigated valves. Finally, the Solo valve appeared to provide a more physiologic aortic root expansion pattern than its prosthetic counterparts.


The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2012;21:181-188

Aortic Root Distensibility after Subcoronary Stentless Valve Implantation

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.