Abnormal aortic flow profiles persist after aortic valve replacement in the majority of patients with aortic valve disease: how model-based personalized therapy planning could improve results. A pilot study approach. (25th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nordmeyer, Sarah; Hellmeier, Florian; Yevtushenko, Pavel; Kelm, Marcus; Lee, Chong-Bin; Lehmann, Daniel; Kropf, Siegfried; Berger, Felix; Falk, Volkmar; Knosalla, Christoph; Kuehne, Titus; Goubergrits, Leonid
• Is Part Of: European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. Volume 57:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 133
• Page End: 141
• Publication Date: 2019-05-25
• Subjects: Aortic valve replacement -- Blood flow profiles -- Model-based therapy planning; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Chest -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz149
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-7940

Abstract

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Complex blood flow profiles in the aorta are known to contribute to vessel dilatation. We studied flow profiles in the aorta in patients with aortic valve disease before and after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Thirty-four patients with aortic valve disease underwent 4-dimensional velocity-encoded magnetic resonance imaging before and after AVR (biological valve = 27, mechanical valve = 7). Seven healthy volunteers served as controls. Eccentricity (ES) and complex flow scores (CFS) were determined from the degree of helicity, vorticity and eccentricity of flow profiles in the aorta. Model-based therapy planning was used in 4 cases to improve in silico postoperative flow profiles by personalized adjustment of size, rotation and angulation of the valve as well as aorta diameter. RESULTS: Patients with aortic valve disease showed more complex flow than controls [median ES 2.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3–2.7) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–1.0), P < 0.001, median CFS 4.7 (IQR 4.3–4.8) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–2.0), P < 0.001]. After surgery, flow complexity in the total patient cohort was reduced, but remained significantly higher compared to controls [median ES 2.3 (IQR 1.9–2.3) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–1.0), P < 0.001, median CFS 3.8 (IQR 3.0–4.3) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–2.0), P < 0.001]. In patients after mechanical AVR, flow complexity fell substantially and showed no difference from controls [median ES 1.0 (IQR 1.0–2.3) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–1.0), P = 0.46, median CFS 1.0 (IQR 1.0–3.3) vs 1.0 (IQR 1.0–2.0), P = 0.71]. In all 4 selected cases (biological, n = 2; mechanical, n = 2), model-based therapy planning reduced in silico complexity of flow profiles compared to the existing post-surgical findings [median ES 1.7 (IQR 1.4–1.7) vs 2.3 (IQR 2.3–2.3); CFS 1.7 (IQR 1.4–2.5) vs 3.8 (IQR 3.3–4.3)]. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal flow profiles in the aorta more frequently persist after surgical AVR. Model-based therapy planning might have the potential to optimize treatment for best possible individual outcome. Clinical trial registration number: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03172338, 1 June 2017, retrospectively registered; NCT02591940, 30 October 2015, retrospectively registered.