Comparison of porcine pulmonary and aortic root material properties.

BACKGROUND The pulmonary autograft remodels when subjected to systemic pressure and subsequent dilation can lead to reoperation. Inherent material property differences between pulmonary and aortic roots may influence remodeling but are currently unknown. The objective of this study was to determine stiffness across a wide range of strain and compare nonlinear material properties of corresponding regions of native aortic and pulmonary roots. METHODS Tissue samples from porcine aortic and pulmonary roots-sinuses and supravalvular artery distal to the sinotubular junction-were subjected to displacement-controlled equibiaxial stretch testing. Stress-strain data recorded were used to derive strain energy functions for each region. Stiffness from low to high strains at 0.15, 0.3, and 0.5 strain were determined for comparisons. RESULTS Aortic and pulmonary roots exhibited qualitatively similar material properties; both had greater nonlinearity in the sinus than supravalvular artery. The pulmonary artery was significantly more compliant than the ascending aorta both circumferentially and longitudinally throughout the strain range (p < 0.03), except at high strain circumferentially (p = 0.06). However, no differences in stiffness were seen circumferentially or longitudinally between pulmonary and aortic sinuses (p > or = 0.3) until high strain, when the pulmonary sinuses were significantly stiffer (p < 0.05) in both directions. CONCLUSIONS Differences in stiffness between porcine aortic and pulmonary roots are regionally specific, supravalvular artery versus sinus. These regional differences may impact the mode of remodeling to influence late autograft dilation.

[1]  G. Gibbons,et al.  The emerging concept of vascular remodeling. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  C. Schmidtke,et al.  Size and distensibility of the aortic root and aortic valve function after different techniques of the ross procedure. , 2000, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  T. David Ross procedure at the crossroads. , 2009, Circulation.

[4]  N. Kouchoukos,et al.  The Ross procedure: long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. , 2004, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[5]  Frederick J Schoen,et al.  Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive remodeling in the aortic site. , 2004, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[6]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  Aortic root disease after the Ross procedure , 2006, Current opinion in cardiology.

[7]  W. M. Swanson,et al.  Dimensions and Geometric Relationships of the Human Aortic Value as a Function of Pressure , 1974, Circulation research.

[8]  F. Al-Rashidi,et al.  A modified Ross operation to prevent pulmonary autograft dilatation. , 2007, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[9]  J. Roelandt,et al.  Excessive pulmonary autograft dilatation causes important aortic regurgitation , 2003, Heart.

[10]  G. Melina,et al.  An evaluation of the Ross operation in adults. , 2006, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[11]  D. Thompson,et al.  Ross operation: 16-year experience. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[12]  Magdi H. Yacoub,et al.  Aortic Root Characteristics of Human Pulmonary Autografts , 2000, Circulation.

[13]  D. Ross,et al.  A Critical Reappraisal of the Ross Operation: Renaissance of the Subcoronary Implantation Technique? , 2006, Circulation.

[14]  J D Humphrey,et al.  Mechanics of the arterial wall: review and directions. , 1995, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[15]  Y. Fung,et al.  Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues , 1981 .

[16]  S. Armstrong,et al.  Dilation of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure. , 2000, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[17]  W. Roberts,et al.  Detailed anatomy of the normally functioning aortic valve in hearts of normal and increased weight. , 1985, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  L. Barozzi,et al.  Fate of the Aortic Root Late After Ross Operation , 2003, Circulation.

[19]  M. Eijkemans,et al.  The Ross Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2009, Circulation.

[20]  A. Mazzucco,et al.  Reoperations for aortic aneurysm after the Ross procedure. , 2005, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[21]  Robin Shandas,et al.  Changes in the structure-function relationship of elastin and its impact on the proximal pulmonary arterial mechanics of hypertensive calves. , 2008, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[22]  M. Sacks,et al.  Simulated bioprosthetic heart valve deformation under quasi-static loading. , 2005, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[23]  E. Lansac,et al.  Aortic and pulmonary root: are their dynamics similar? , 2002, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[24]  David Saloner,et al.  Significant material property differences between the porcine ascending aorta and aortic sinuses. , 2008, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[25]  Longitudinal and radial distensibility of the porcine aortic root. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[26]  S. Cowin,et al.  Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues, 2nd ed. , 1994 .

[27]  P. Walker,et al.  The in vitro hydrodynamic characteristics of the porcine pulmonary valve and root with regard to the ross procedure. , 2000, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.