4D-Flow MRI and Vector Ultrasound in the In-Vitro Evaluation of Surgical Aortic Heart Valves - a Pilot Study.
3D-Printing
4D-MRI
Surgical Heart Valve
Vector Ultrasound
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular translational research
ISSN: 1937-5395
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Transl Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101468585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Oct 2024
04 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
02
02
2024
accepted:
12
09
2024
medline:
4
10
2024
pubmed:
4
10
2024
entrez:
4
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The aim of this study was the initial investigation of 4D-Flow MRI and Vector Ultrasound as novel imaging techniques in the in-vitro analysis of hemodynamics in anatomical models. Specifically, by looking at the hemodynamic performance of state-of-the-art surgical heart valves in a 3D-printed aortic arch. The mock circulatory loop simulated physiological, pulsatile flow. Two mechanical and three biological aortic valves prostheses were compared in a 3D-printed aortic arch. 4D magnetic resonance imaging and vector flow Doppler ultrasound served as imaging methods. Hemodynamic parameters such as wall shear stress, flow velocities and pressure gradients were analyzed. The flow analysis revealed characteristic flow-patterns in the 3D-printed aortic arch. The blood-flow in the arch presented complex patterns, including the formation of helixes and vortices. Higher proximal peak velocities and lower flow volumes were found for biological valves. The mock circulatory loop in combination with modern radiological imaging provides a sufficient basis for the hemodynamic comparison of aortic valves.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39365396
doi: 10.1007/s12265-024-10564-0
pii: 10.1007/s12265-024-10564-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lindman BR, et al. Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: Evolving Concepts in Timing of Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(2 Pt 1):481–93.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.01.036
pubmed: 31202751
Russo M, et al. The evolution of surgical valves. Cardiovascular Medicine. 2017;20(12):285–92.
doi: 10.4414/cvm.2017.00532
Schubert K, et al. A novel trileaflet mechanical heart valve: first in vitro results. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28(5):689–94.
doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivy337
pubmed: 30590696
Poulis N, et al. Tissue engineered heart valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current state, challenges, and future developments. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2020;18(10):681–96.
doi: 10.1080/14779072.2020.1792777
pubmed: 32791869
Doenst T, et al. Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(5):1180–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.05.007
pubmed: 21703637
Johnson A, Mohajer-Esfahani M. Exploring hemodynamics: a review of current and emerging noninvasive monitoring techniques. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2014;26(3):357–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2014.05.001
pubmed: 25169689
Riedel C, et al. Abdominal Applications of 4D Flow MRI. Rofo. 2021;193(4):388–98.
doi: 10.1055/a-1271-7405
pubmed: 33264806
Kang J, and Ha H Particle Image Velocimetry Investigation of Hemodynamics via Aortic Phantom. J Vis Exp 2022;(180) https://doi.org/10.3791/63492-v
Heo W, et al Quantification of visceral perfusion and impact of femoral cannulation: in vitro model of aortic dissection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022; 62(1) https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezab508
Chi QZ, et al Experimental Study of the Propagation Process of Dissection Using an Aortic Silicone Phantom. J Funct Biomater 2022; 13(4): 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040290 .
Rocchi M, et al. Use of 3D anatomical models in mock circulatory loops for cardiac medical device testing. Artif Organs. 2023;47(2):260–72.
doi: 10.1111/aor.14433
pubmed: 36370033
Markl M, et al. 4D flow MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(5):1015–36.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.23632
pubmed: 23090914
Horowitz MJ, et al. 4D Flow MRI Quantification of Congenital Shunts: Comparison to Invasive Catheterization. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2021;3(2): e200446.
doi: 10.1148/ryct.2021200446
pubmed: 33969306
pmcid: 8098085
Cain MT, et al. 4D-Flow MRI intracardiac flow analysis considering different subtypes of pulmonary hypertension. Pulm Circ. 2023;13(4): e12307.
doi: 10.1002/pul2.12307
pmcid: 10628368
Roldan-Alzate A, et al. In vivo validation of 4D flow MRI for assessing the hemodynamics of portal hypertension. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(5):1100–8.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.23906
pubmed: 23148034
Du Y, et al. Wall Shear Stress Measurements Based on Ultrasound Vector Flow Imaging: Theoretical Studies and Clinical Examples. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(8):1649–64.
doi: 10.1002/jum.15253
pubmed: 32124997
pmcid: 7497026
Grab M, et al Development and Evaluation of 3D-Printed Cardiovascular Phantoms for Interventional Planning and Training. J Vis Exp 2021;(167) https://doi.org/10.3791/62063
Smith RF, Rutt BK, Holdsworth DW. Anthropomorphic carotid bifurcation phantom for MRI applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(4):533–44.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199910)10:4<533::AID-JMRI6>3.0.CO;2-Z
pubmed: 10508320
Bissell MM, et al. 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2023;25(1):40.
doi: 10.1186/s12968-023-00942-z
pubmed: 37474977
pmcid: 10357639
Stalder AF, et al. Quantitative 2D and 3D phase contrast MRI: optimized analysis of blood flow and vessel wall parameters. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60(5):1218–31.
doi: 10.1002/mrm.21778
pubmed: 18956416
Soulis JV, et al Relative residence time and oscillatory shear index of non-Newtonian flow models in aorta. in 2011 10th International Workshop on Biomedical Engineering. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/iwbe.2011.6079011 .
Sadat N, et al Functional performance of 8 small surgical aortic valve bioprostheses: an in vitro study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022;62(4) https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac426
Romarowski RM, et al. Patient-specific CFD modelling in the thoracic aorta with PC-MRI-based boundary conditions: A least-square three-element Windkessel approach. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2018;34(11): e3134.
doi: 10.1002/cnm.3134
pubmed: 30062843
Miyazaki S, et al. Validation of numerical simulation methods in aortic arch using 4D Flow MRI. Heart Vessels. 2017;32(8):1032–44.
doi: 10.1007/s00380-017-0979-2
pubmed: 28444501
Birjiniuk J, et al. Intermediate fenestrations reduce flow reversal in a silicone model of Stanford Type B aortic dissection. J Biomech. 2019;93:101–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.06.019
pubmed: 31326118
Burk J, et al. Evaluation of 3D blood flow patterns and wall shear stress in the normal and dilated thoracic aorta using flow-sensitive 4D CMR. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14(1):84.
doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-14-84
pubmed: 23237187
pmcid: 3534249
Comunale G, et al Numerical Models Can Assist Choice of an Aortic Phantom for In Vitro Testing. Bioengineering (Basel), 2021; 8(8): 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering8080101 .
Trenti C, et al. Wall shear stress and relative residence time as potential risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysms in males: a 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance case-control study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2022;24(1):18.
doi: 10.1186/s12968-022-00848-2
pubmed: 35303893
pmcid: 8932193
Hwang J, et al. Pulsatile versus oscillatory shear stress regulates NADPH oxidase subunit expression: implication for native LDL oxidation. Circ Res. 2003;93(12):1225–32.
doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000104087.29395.66
pubmed: 14593003
pmcid: 4433384
Farag ES, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement alters ascending aortic blood flow and wall shear stress patterns: A 4D flow MRI comparison with age-matched, elderly controls. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1444–51.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5672-z
pubmed: 30132105
Yazdi SG, et al. In vitro pulsatile flow study in compliant and rigid ascending aorta phantoms by stereo particle image velocimetry. Med Eng Phys. 2021;96:81–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.08.010
pubmed: 34565556
Hatoum H, Maureira P, Dasi LP. A turbulence in vitro assessment of On-X and St Jude Medical prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159(1):88–97.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.02.046
pubmed: 30905419
Lee H, et al. Hemodynamic Performance of Pericardial Bioprostheses in the Aortic Position. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;53(5):285–90.
doi: 10.5090/kjtcs.19.099
pubmed: 33020346
pmcid: 7553830
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1034–48.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886
pubmed: 19237674
Qiu Y, et al. High-Frame Rate Vector Flow Imaging Technique: Initial Application in Evaluating the Hemodynamic Changes of Carotid Stenosis Caused by Atherosclerosis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 617391.
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.617391
pubmed: 33763457
pmcid: 7982422
Dasi LP, et al. Fluid mechanics of artificial heart valves. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2009;36(2):225–37.
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.05099.x
pubmed: 19220329
pmcid: 2752693
Osswald A, et al. Elevated Wall Shear Stress in Aortic Type B Dissection May Relate to Retrograde Aortic Type A Dissection: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Pilot Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;54(3):324–30.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.06.012
pubmed: 28716447
Manchester EL, et al. Evaluation of Computational Methodologies for Accurate Prediction of Wall Shear Stress and Turbulence Parameters in a Patient-Specific Aorta. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10: 836611.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.836611
pubmed: 35402418
pmcid: 8987126