Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 79–88 | Cite as

The impact of implantation depth of the Lotus™ valve on mechanical stress in close proximity to the bundle of His

  • Orla M. McGee
  • Paul S. Gunning
  • Adrian McNamara
  • Laoise M. McNamaraEmail author
Original Paper


It has been proposed that inappropriate positioning of transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) is associated with procedural complications and decreased device durability. Second-generation TAVs allow for repositioning giving greater control over the final deployment position. However, the impact of positioning on the tissue surrounding these devices needs to be better understood, in particular for the interleaflet triangle in which the conductance system (bundle of His) resides. In this study, we investigate the impact of implantation depth on the frame–tissue interaction for a next-generation repositionable Lotus™ valve. For this purpose, a computational model simulating deployment of the Lotus valve frame into a calcified patient-specific aortic root geometry was generated to predict aortic root stress and frame eccentricity at three different deployment depths. The results of this study predicted that positioning of the Lotus valve had an influence on the stresses in the aortic sinus and frame eccentricity. An analysis of levels of stress arising in the vicinity of the bundle of His, as a function of implantation depth, was conducted, and it was found that, for the specific patient anatomy studied, although the sub-annular position showed reduced peak stress in the aortic sinus, this implantation position showed the highest stress in the area of greatest risks of conductance interference. In contrast, while a supra-annular position increased the peak arterial stress, this implantation position resulted in lower stress in the interleaflet triangle and thus might reduce the risk of conductance interference. These results provide pre-operative information that can inform clinical decision-making regarding TAVI positioning.


Transcatheter aortic valve replacement Transcatheter aortic valve implantation Patient-specific Finite element modelling Lotus valve 



The authors acknowledge funding from the Irish Researcher Council Enterprise Partnership Scheme Postgraduate Scholarship and the Irish Centre for High-End Computing (ICHEC).


This study was funded by an Irish Research Council Enterprise Partnership Scheme Postgraduate Scholarship 2014 in collaboration with Boston Scientific (EPSPG/2014/120).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Orla M. McGee and Professor Laoise M. McNamara are collaborating with Boston Scientific under an Irish Research Council Enterprise Partnership Scheme Postgraduate Scholarship.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Auricchio F, Taylor RL (1997) Shape-memory alloys: modelling and numerical simulations of the finite-strain superelastic behavior. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 143:175–194. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Auricchio F, Taylor RL, Lubliner J (1997) Shape-memory alloys: macromodelling and numerical simulations of the superelastic behavior. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 146:281–312. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Auricchio F, Conti M, Morganti S, Reali A (2014) Simulation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a patient-specific finite element approach. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 17:1347–1357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baan J Jr et al (2010) Factors associated with cardiac conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation after percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis. Am Heart J 159:497–503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block PC (2010) Leaks and the “great ship” TAVI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75:873–874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao C, Ang SC, Vallely MP, Ng M, Adams M, Wilson M (2012) Migration of the transcatheter valve into the left ventricle. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 1:243–244. Google Scholar
  7. Capelli C et al (2012) Patient-specific simulations of transcatheter aortic valve stent implantation. Med Biol Eng Compu 50:183–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charitos EI, Sievers H-H (2013) Anatomy of the aortic root: implications for valve-sparing surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2:53–56Google Scholar
  9. Colombo A, Latib A (2012) Left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation inconsequential or a clinically important endpoint? J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1753–1755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conway C, Sharif F, McGarry JP, McHugh PE (2012) A computational test-bed to assess coronary stent implantation mechanics using a population-specific approach. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 3:374–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finotello A, Morganti S, Auricchio F (2017) Finite element analysis of TAVI: impact of native aortic root computational modeling strategies on simulation outcomes. Med Eng Phys 47:2–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraccaro C et al (2011) Incidence, predictors, and outcome of conduction disorders after transcatheter self-expandable aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 107:747–754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Généreux P et al (2013) Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement the new Achilles’ heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:1125–1136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gooley RP, Cameron JD, Meredith IT (2015) Assessment of the geometric interaction between the lotus transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis and the native ventricular aortic interface by 320-multidetector computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8:740–749. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunning P (2014) Experimental and computational investigation of the impact of distorted stent expansion on the performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacements. NUI GalwayGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunning PS, Saikrishnan N, McNamara LM, Yoganathan AP (2014a) An in vitro evaluation of the impact of eccentric deployment on transcatheter aortic valve hemodynamics. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1195–1206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunning PS, Vaughan TJ, McNamara LM (2014b) Simulation of self expanding transcatheter aortic valve in a realistic aortic root: implications of deployment geometry on leaflet deformation. Ann Biomed Eng 42:1989–2001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunning PS, Saikrishnan N, Yoganathan AP, McNamara LM (2015) Total ellipse of the heart valve: the impact of eccentric stent distortion on the regional dynamic deformation of pericardial tissue leaflets of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J R Soc Interface 12:20150737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayashida K et al (2013) Potential mechanism of annulus rupture during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 82:E742–746. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houthuizen P et al (2012) Left bundle-branch block induced by transcatheter aortic valve implantation increases risk of death. Circulation 126:720–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu M-C, Bazilevs Y (2011) Blood vessel tissue prestress modeling for vascular fluid–structure interaction simulation. Finite Elem Anal Des 47:593–599. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter RJ, Liu Y, Lu Y, Wang W, Schilling RJ (2012) Left atrial wall stress distribution and its relationship to electrophysiologic remodeling in persistent atrial fibrillation. Circulation Arrhythm Electrophysiol 5:351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iung B et al (2003) A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro heart survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 24:1231–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasel AM, Cassese S, Bleiziffer S, Amaki M, Hahn RT, Kastrati A, Sengupta PP (2013) Standardized imaging for aortic annular sizing implications for transcatheter valve selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 6:249–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khawaja MZ et al (2011) Permanent pacemaker insertion after core valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circulation 123:951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loree HM, Grodzinsky AJ, Park SY, Gibson LJ, Lee RT (1994) Static circumferential tangential modulus of human atherosclerotic tissue. J Biomech 27:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin C, Pham T, Sun W (2011) Significant differences in the material properties between aged human and porcine aortic tissues. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 40:28–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masson J-B et al (2009) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation review of the nature, management, and avoidance of procedural complications. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:811–820. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Misfeld M, Sievers H-H (2007) Heart valve macro- and microstructure. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362:1421–1436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morganti S, Brambilla N, Petronio AS, Reali A, Bedogni F, Auricchio F (2016) Prediction of patient-specific post-operative outcomes of TAVI procedure: the impact of the positioning strategy on valve performance. J Biomech. Google Scholar
  31. Mummert J, Sirois E, Sun W (2013) Quantification of biomechanical interaction of transcatheter aortic valve stent deployed in porcine and ovine hearts. Ann Biomed Eng 41:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogden RW, Roxburgh DG (1999) A pseudo-elastic model for the Mullins effect in filled rubber. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Eng Sci 455:2861MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Pericevic I, Lally C, Toner D, Kelly DJ (2009) The influence of plaque composition on underlying arterial wall stress during stent expansion: the case for lesion-specific stents. Med Eng Phys 31:428–433. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piazza N, de Jaegere P, Schultz C, Becker AE, Serruys PW, Anderson RH (2008) Anatomy of the aortic valvar complex and its implications for transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 1:74–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sirois E, Wang Q, Sun W (2011) Fluid simulation of a transcatheter aortic valve deployment into a patient-specific aortic root. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 2:186–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun W, Li K, Sirois E (2010) Simulated elliptical bioprosthetic valve deformation: implications for asymmetric transcatheter valve deployment. J Biomech 43:3085–3090. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tzamtzis S, Viquerat J, Yap J, Mullen MJ, Burriesci G (2013) Numerical analysis of the radial force produced by the Medtronic-CoreValve and Edwards-SAPIEN after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Med Eng Phys 35:125–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Urena M et al (2012) Predictive factors and long-term clinical consequences of persistent left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:1743–1752. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walther T, Blumenstein J, van Linden A, Kempfert J (2012) Contemporary management of aortic stenosis: surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard. Heart 98(Suppl 4):iv23–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang Q, Sirois E, Sun W (2012) Patient-specific modeling of biomechanical interaction in transcatheter aortic valve deployment. J Biomech 45:1965–1971. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Q, Kodali S, Primiano C, Sun W (2015) Simulations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: implications for aortic root rupture. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 14:29–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zahedmanesh H, John Kelly D, Lally C (2010) Simulation of a balloon expandable stent in a realistic coronary artery—determination of the optimum modelling strategy. J Biomech 43:2126–2132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orla M. McGee
    • 1
  • Paul S. Gunning
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adrian McNamara
    • 2
  • Laoise M. McNamara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Biomechanics Research Centre, Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering and InformaticsNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Boston ScientificGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations