Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 577–586 | Cite as

Quantification of Biomechanical Interaction of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent Deployed in Porcine and Ovine Hearts

Article

Abstract

Success of the deployment and function in transcatheter aortic valve replacement is heavily reliant on the tissue–stent interaction. The present study quantified important tissue–stent contact variables of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve stents when deployed into ovine and porcine aortic roots, such as the stent radial expansion force, stent pullout force, the annulus deformation response and the coefficient of friction on the tissue–stent contact interface. Braided Nitinol stents were developed, tested to determine stent crimped diameter vs. stent radial force from a stent crimp experiment, and deployed in vitro to quantify stent pullout, aortic annulus deformation, and the coefficient of friction between the stent and the aortic tissue from an aortic root–stent interaction experiment. The results indicated that when crimped at body temperature from 26 mm to 19, 21 and 23 mm stent radial forces were approximately 30–40% higher than those crimped at room temperature. Coefficients of friction leveled to approximately 0.10 ± 0.01 as stent wire diameter increased and annulus size decreased from 23 to 19 mm. Regardless of aortic annulus size and species tested, it appeared that a minimum of about 2.5 mm in annular dilatation, caused by about 60 N of radial force from stent expansion, was needed to anchor the stent against a pullout into the left ventricle. The study of the contact biomechanics in animal aortic tissues may help us better understand characteristics of tissue–stent interactions and quantify the baseline responses of non-calcified aortic tissues.

Keywords

Transcatheter aortic valves Self-expanding Radial force Biomechanics 

References

  1. 1.
    Bia, D., et al. Cryopreservation procedure does not modify human carotid homografts mechanical properties: an isobaric and dynamic analysis. Cell Tissue Banking 7:183–194, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boudjemline, Y., et al. Steps toward the percutaneous replacement of atrioventricular valves: an experimental study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 46(2):360–365, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capelli, C., et al. Patient-specific simulations of transcatheter aortic valve stent implantation. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50(2):183–192, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cribier, A., H. Eltchaninoff, and N. Borenstein. Trans-catheter implantation of a baloon-expandable prosthetic heart valves: early results in an animal model. Circulation 11(Suppl. 11):11–552, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cribier, A., et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106(24):3006–3008, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dewey, T. M., et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation: an animal feasibility study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 82(1):110–116, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duerig, T. W., D. E. Tolomeo, and M. Wholey. An overview of superelastic stent design. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 9(3–4):235–246, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dwyer, H., et al. Migration forces of transcatheter aortic valves in patients with noncalcific aortic insufficiency. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 138(5):1227–1233, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallegos, R. P., et al. The current state of in-vivo pre-clinical animal models for heart valve evaluation. J. Heart Valve Dis. 14(3):423–432, 2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garay, F., et al. The Cribier-Edwards percutaneous heart valve in the pulmonic position: initial animal experience. EuroInterv. Suppl. 1(Supplement A):A32–A35, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grube, E., et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients using the second- and current third-generation self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis: device success and 30-day clinical outcome. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1(50):69–76, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Humphrey, J. D. Cardiovascular Solid Mechanics: Cells, Tissues, and Organs. New York: Springer, vol. xvi, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lauten, A., et al. Experimental evaluation of the JenaClip transcatheter aortic valve. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 74(3):514–519, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutter, G., et al. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement: an experimental study. I. Studies on implantation. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 123(4):768–776, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, C., T. Pham, and W. Sun. Significant differences in the material properties between aged human and porcine aortic tissues. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 40(1):28–34, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin, C., and W. Sun. Biomechanical characterization of aortic valve tissue in humans and common animal models. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 100A(6):1591–1599, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Movahed, M. Where are we going with percutaneous aortic valve replacement? Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 6(5):997–998, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naqvi, T. Z., et al. Beating-heart percutaneous mitral valve repair using a transcatheter endovascular suturing device in an animal model. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 69(4):525–531, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavcnik, D., K. C. Wright, and S. Wallace. Development and initial experimental evaluation of a prosthetic aortic valve for transcatheter placement: work in progress. Radiology 183(1):151–154, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedersen, W. R., et al. iCoapsys mitral valve repair system: percutaneous implantation in an animal model. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 72(1):125–131, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pham, T., and W. Sun. Comparison of biaxial mechanical properties of coronary sinus tissues from porcine, ovine and aged human species. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 6:21–29, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodés-Cabau, J. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: current and future approaches. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 9(1):15–29, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schoenhagen, P., et al. In vivo imaging and computational analysis of the aortic root. Application in clinical research and design of transcatheter aortic valve systems. J. Cardiovasc. Transl. Res. 4(4):459–469, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schultz, C. J., et al. Three dimensional evaluation of the aortic annulus using multislice computer tomography: are manufacturer’s guidelines for sizing for percutaneous aortic valve replacement helpful? Eur. Heart J. 31(7):849–856, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stoeckel, D., A. Pelton, and T. Duerig. Self-expanding Nitinol stents: material and design considerations. Eur. Radiol. 14(2):292–301, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sun, W., K. Li, and E. Sirois. Simulated elliptical bioprosthetic valve deformation: implications for asymmetric transcatheter valve deployment. J. Biomech. 43(16):3085–3090, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tzamtzis, S., et al. Numerical analysis of the radial force produced by the Medtronic-CoreValve and Edwards-SAPIEN after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Med. Eng. Phys. 2012 (in press).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vad, S., et al. Determination of coefficient of friction for self-expanding stent-grafts. J. Biomech. Eng. 132(12), Article No. 121007, 2010.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walther, T., et al. Transapical approach for sutureless stent-fixed aortic valve implantation: experimental results. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 29(5):703–708, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Q., E. Sirois, and W. Sun. Patient-specific modeling of biomechanical interaction in transcatheter aortic valve deployment. J. Biomech. 45(11):1965–1971, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webb, J. G., and D. A. Wood. Current status of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60(6):483–492, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Webb, J., et al. Percutaneous transarterial aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation 7(116):755–763, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ye, J., et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: follow-up to 3 years. J. Thoracic Cardiovasc. Surg. 139(5):1107–1113.e1, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zamorano, J. L., et al. EAE/ASE recommendations for the use of echocardiography in new transcatheter interventions for valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 32(17):2189–2214, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zegdi, R., et al. Increased radial force improves stent deployment in tricuspid but not in bicuspid stenotic native aortic valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 89(3):768–772, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zong, G. J., et al. Use of a novel valve stent for transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement: an animal study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137(6):1363–1369, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tissue Mechanics Lab, Biomedical Engineering Program and Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations