A metric for the stiffness of calcified aortic valves using a combined computational and experimental approach

  • Hoda Maleki
  • Shahrokh Shahriari
  • Louis G. Durand
  • Michel R. Labrosse
  • Lyes Kadem
Original Article

Abstract

Calcific aortic valve disease is the most common heart valve disease. It is associated with a significant increase in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and independently increases the cardiovascular risk. It is then important to develop parameters that can estimate the stiffness of the valve. Such parameters may contribute to early detection of the disease or track its progression and optimize the timing for therapy. In this study, we introduce a metric representing the stiffness of the native aortic calcified valve over a wide range of stenosis severities. Our approach is based on three-dimensional structural finite-element simulations and in vitro measurements. The proposed method is developed first in a pulse duplicator; its clinical applicability is then evaluated in three patients with severe aortic stenosis. Our results indicate that the value of the proposed metric varies considerably between healthy valves and valves with very severe aortic stenosis, from 0.001 to 7.38 MPa, respectively. The method introduced in this study could give useful information regarding the stiffness of the valve leaflets with potential application to the evaluation of aortic sclerosis and aortic stenosis.

Keywords

Aortic valve Calcific heart valve disease Aortic sclerosis and stenosis 3D finite-element analysis In vitro testing 

References

  1. 1.
    Blais C, Burwash IG, Mundigler G, Dumesnil JG, Loho N, Rader F, Baumgartner H, Beanlands RS, Chayer B, Kadem L, Garcia D, Durand LG, Pibarot P (2006) The projected valve area at normal flow rate improves the assessment of stenosis severity in patients with low flow, low gradient aortic stenosis. Circulation 113:711–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K et al (2008) Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation 118(15):e523–e661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burriesci G, Howard I, Patterson E (1999) Influence of anisotropy on the mechanical behaviour of bioprosthetic heart valves. J Med Eng Technol 23(6):203–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia D, Pibarot P, Landry C, Allard A, Chayer B, Dumesnil JG, Durand LG (2004) Estimation of aortic valve effective orifice area by Doppler echocardiography: effects of valve inflow shape and flow rate. J Am Soc Echocardiog 17(7):756–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia D, Barenbrug PJC, Pibarot P, Dekker ALAJ, van der Veen AH, Maessen JG, Dumesnil JG, Durand LG (2005) A ventricular-vascular coupling model in presence of aortic stenosis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 288:H1874–H1884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guccione JM, McCulloh AD, Waldman LK (1991) Passive material properties of intact ventricular myocardium determined from a cylindrical model. J Biomech Eng 113(1):42–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guccione JM, Costat KD, McCulloh AD (1995) Finite element stress analysis of left ventricular mechanics in the beating dog heart. J Biomech 28(10):1117–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labrosse MR, Lobo K, Beller C (2010) Structural analysis of the natural aortic valve in dynamics: from unpressurized to physiologically loaded. J Biomech 43(10):1916–1922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee JC, Zhao XQ, Otto CM (2005) Aortic valve sclerosis. J Echocardiogr 3(2):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li J, Luo XY, Kuang ZB (2001) A nonlinear anisotropic model for porcine aortic heart valves. J Biomech 34:1279–1289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Messika-Zeitoun D, Aubry MC, Detaint D, Bielak LF, Peyser PA, Sheedy PF, Turner ST, Breen JF, Scott C, Tajik J, Enriquez-Sarano M (2004) Evaluation and clinical implications of aortic valve calcification measured by electron-beam computed tomography. Circulation 110:356–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Novo G, Fazio G, Visconti C, Carita P, Maira E, Fattouch K, Novo S (2011) Atherosclerosis, degenerative aortic stenosis and statins. Curr Drug Targets 12(1):115–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Omens JH, Usyk TP, Li Z, Mcculloch DA (2002) Muscle LIM protein deficiency leads to alterations in passive ventricular mechanics. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 282:H680–H687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otto CM (2000) Timing of aortic valve surgery. Heart 84(2):211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sahasakul Y, Edwards WD, Naessens JM, Tajik AJ (1988) Age-related changes in aortic and mitral valve thickness: implications for two-dimensional echocardiography based on an autopsy study of 200 normal human hearts. Am J Cardiol 62:424–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saleeb AF, Kumar A, Thomas VS (2013) The important roles of tissue anisotropy and tissue-to-tissue contact on the dynamical behavior of a symmetric tri-leaflet valve during multiple cardiac pressure cycles. Med Eng Phys 35(1):23–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun W, Abad A, Sacks MS (2005) Simulated bioprosthetic heart valve deformation under quasi-static loading. J Biomech Eng 127(6):905–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Loon R (2010) Towards computational modeling of aortic stenosis. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 26:405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weinberg EJ, Schoen FJ, Mofrad MRK (2009) A computational model of aging and calcification in the aortic heart valve. PLoS ONE 4:e5960PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hoda Maleki
    • 1
  • Shahrokh Shahriari
    • 1
  • Louis G. Durand
    • 2
  • Michel R. Labrosse
    • 3
  • Lyes Kadem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Laboratory of Biomedical EngineeringInstitut de Recherches Cliniques de MontréalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations