Natural preload of aortic valve leaflet components during glutaraldehyde fixation: effects on tissue mechanics.

The mechanics of glutaraldehyde-fixed aortic valve leaflets depend largely on the amount of stress present during fixation. Our previous work has suggested that even when the aortic valve is flaccid, the leaflet components are preloaded. We have, therefore, hypothesized that fixing valve leaflets in this naturally preloaded state will affect the function of their components, the fibrosa and the ventricularis. We have compared the elastic response of fibrosa and ventricularis fixed under 'low' and 'zero' tensile and compressive preload by testing 120 of these layers: (i) fresh, (ii) glutaraldehyde-fixed, and (iii) isolated from whole porcine aortic valve leaflets fixed while intact. In both the radial and circumferential directions, the fibrosa from intact-fixed valves was more extensible than the fresh (39.2 vs 29.2% strain to high modulus phase at p < 0.0122, and 12.7 vs 8.1% strain, at p < 0.0003, respectively). The ventricularis from intact-fixed valves, however, was less extensible than when fresh (35.4 vs 63.7% strain, at p < 0.00001 in the radial direction). The fibrosa must have, therefore, been fixed under compression and the ventricularis under tension, when fixed together in the intact aortic valve cusp. The tensile stresses in the intact-fixed ventricularis produced a greater circumferential elastic modulus than in separately fixed tissue (9.62 vs 4.65 MPa, at p < 0.00001), likely through a fibre recruitment process. Compressive stresses in the fibrosa produced a decrease in the elastic modulus both radially and circumferentially (from 3.79 to 2.26 MPa at p < 0.0023, and from 9.55 to 4.65 MPa at p < 0.00001, respectively). Fixing porcine aortic valves at even minimal tensile and compressive preload, such as that which occurs naturally, significantly alters both the extensibility and the elastic modulus of the valve leaflet components.

[1]  G F Tyers,et al.  The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis. A first-generation tissue valve with excellent long-term clinical performance. , 1990, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  L Gross,et al.  Topographic Anatomy and Histology of the Valves in the Human Heart. , 1931, The American journal of pathology.

[3]  E. Trowbridge,et al.  The standardisation of gauge length: its influence on the relative extensibility of natural and chemically modified pericardium. , 1986, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  N. Broom,et al.  Simultaneous morphological and stress-strain studies of the fibrous components in wet heart valve leaflet tissue. , 1978, Connective tissue research.

[5]  J M Lee,et al.  Effect of alternative crosslinking methods on the low strain rate viscoelastic properties of bovine pericardial bioprosthetic material. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[6]  I. Vesely Analysis of the Medtronic Intact bioprosthetic valve. Effects of "zero-pressure" fixation. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[7]  B H Smaill,et al.  An assessment of the mechanical properties of leaflets from four second-generation porcine bioprostheses with biaxial testing techniques. , 1989, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[8]  Effect of glutaraldehyde fixation and valve constraint conditions on porcine aortic valve leaflet coaptation. , 1982, Thorax.

[9]  D R Boughner,et al.  The glutaraldehyde-stabilized porcine aortic valve xenograft. I. Tensile viscoelastic properties of the fresh leaflet material. , 1984, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[10]  N. Broom The observation of collagen and elastin structures in wet whole mounts of pulmonary and aortic leaflets. , 1978, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[11]  A A Sauren,et al.  Elastic and viscoelastic material behaviour of fresh and glutaraldehyde-treated porcine aortic valve tissue. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  F. Nistal,et al.  Six- to ten-year follow-up of patients with the Hancock cardiac bioprosthesis. Incidence of primary tissue valve failure. , 1986, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[13]  F. Nistal,et al.  Comparative study of primary tissue failure between porcine (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) and bovine pericardial (Ionescu-Shiley) bioprostheses in the aortic position at five- to nine-year follow-up. , 1988, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  G. Stellin,et al.  Performance of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis following aortic valve replacement: considerations based on a 15-year experience. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[15]  F. Schoen Cardiac valve prostheses: review of clinical status and contemporary biomaterials issues. , 1987, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[16]  A A Sauren,et al.  The mechanical properties of porcine aortic valve tissues. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  F. J. Thomson,et al.  Influence of fixation conditions on the performance of glutaraldehyde-treated porcine aortic valves: towards a more scientific basis. , 1979, Thorax.

[18]  I. Vesely,et al.  Mechanical testing of cryopreserved aortic allografts. Comparison with xenografts and fresh tissue. , 1990, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[19]  M. Nimni,et al.  Mechanism of crosslinking of proteins by glutaraldehyde II. Reaction with monomeric and polymeric collagen. , 1982, Connective tissue research.

[20]  I Vesely,et al.  Tissue buckling as a mechanism of bioprosthetic valve failure. , 1988, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[21]  E. Peterson,et al.  The porcine bioprosthetic valve. Twelve years later. , 1985, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[22]  V. Ferrans,et al.  Porcine aortic valve bioprostheses: a morphologic comparison of the effects of fixation pressure. , 1990, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[23]  I Vesely,et al.  Analysis of the bending behaviour of porcine xenograft leaflets and of natural aortic valve material: bending stiffness, neutral axis and shear measurements. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[24]  M. Thubrikar,et al.  Patterns of calcific deposits in operatively excised stenotic or purely regurgitant aortic valves and their relation to mechanical stress. , 1986, The American journal of cardiology.

[25]  S. Gabbay,et al.  Do heart valve bioprostheses degenerate for metabolic or mechanical reasons? , 1988, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[26]  E. Arbustini,et al.  Calcific degeneration as the main cause of porcine bioprosthetic valve failure. , 1984, The American journal of cardiology.

[27]  H. Rakowski,et al.  Survival and bioprosthetic valve failure. Ten-year follow-up. , 1989, Circulation.

[28]  G Thiene,et al.  Results of reoperation for primary tissue failure of porcine bioprostheses. , 1985, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[29]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  Early mechanical failures of the Hancock pericardial xenograft. , 1987, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[30]  I Vesely,et al.  Micromechanics of the fibrosa and the ventricularis in aortic valve leaflets. , 1992, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  D R Boughner,et al.  The glutaraldehyde-stabilized porcine aortic valve xenograft. II. Effect of fixation with or without pressure on the tensile viscoelastic properties of the leaflet material. , 1984, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[32]  M Jones,et al.  Structure and classification of cuspal tears and perforations in porcine bioprosthetic cardiac valves implanted in patients. , 1981, The American journal of cardiology.