Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Comparison of the sustainability of mitral annular dynamics between two semi-rigid annuloplasty devices

Authors
  • Bouchez, Stefaan
  • Timmermans, Frank
  • Philipsen, Tine
  • Francois, Katrien
  • Bové, Thierry
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2019
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz035
OAI: oai:archive.ugent.be:8605622
Source
Ghent University Institutional Archive
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown
External links

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The choice of annuloplasty device is fundamental at the time of mitral valve repair, the goal being to optimally restore the physiological 3-dimensional (3D) structure and dynamics of the mitral annulus (MA). This study evaluated MA dynamics after annuloplasty with 2 different semi-rigid devices. METHODS: Thirty-three patients eligible for mitral valve repair were selected for annuloplasty with the Physio II ring (Edwards Lifesciences, Irving, CA, USA) (n = 17) or the Memo 3D ring (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) (n = 16). MA dynamics were assessed with transoesophageal 3D echocardiography intraoperatively and 1 year after repair. RESULTS: The postoperative changes in the anteroposterior diameter {3.7% [standard deviation (SD) 2.7] vs 1.9% [SD 1.3]; P = 0.013} and in the annular height [27.7% (SD 8.7) vs 18.0% (SD 13.9); P = 0.003] were significantly larger with the Memo 3D ring during the cardiac cycle. The restoration of the saddle shape at baseline was superior with the Physio II ring, defined by a larger systolic annular height-tocommissural width ratio [15.1% (SD 2.3) vs 7.1% (SD 2.4); P < 0.001]. These observations of MA dynamics were sustained after 1 year, shown by a greater anteroposterior extension [5.1% (SD 1.0) vs 1.7% (SD 1.6); P = 0.002] and change in annular height-to-commissural width ratio [15.7% (SD 12.7) vs 3.1% (SD 3.0); P = 0.020] for the Memo 3D ring. There were no significant differences in mitral valve function between the 2 devices. CONCLUSIONS: The MA dynamics after annuloplasty with the Physio II and Memo 3D rings demonstrated a better systolic 3D restoration of the saddle shape with the Physio II ring, whereas the saddle-shaped geometry improved significantly with the Memo 3D ring, as a dynamic phenomenon. The Memo 3D ring also showed increased anteroposterior annular mobility and folding dynamics throughout the cardiac cycle. Moreover, the observed differences in MA dynamics between both devices appeared to be sustainable 1 year after ring implantation.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times