Advertisement

Suture dehiscence and collagen content in the human mitral and tricuspid annuli

  • Immanuel David Madukauwa-David
  • Eric L. Pierce
  • Fatiesa Sulejmani
  • Joshua Pataky
  • Wei Sun
  • Ajit P. Yoganathan
Original Paper

Abstract

Postoperative suture dehiscence is an important mode of short-term mitral and tricuspid valve (MV, TV) repair failure. We sought to evaluate suture pullout forces and collagen density in human atrioventricular valves for a better understanding of the comparative physiology between the valves and the underlying mechanobiological basis for suture retention. Mitral and tricuspid annuli were each excised from hearts from human donors age 60–79 with no history of heart disease (n = 6). Anchor sutures were vertically pulled until tearing through the tissue. Suture pullout force (FP) was measured as the maximum force at dehiscence. Subsequently, tissue samples from each tested suture position were evaluated for collagen content using a standard hydroxyproline assay. Among all mitral positions, no significant differences were detected among positions or regions with mean FP values falling between 6.9 ± 2.6 N (posterior region) and 10.3 ± 4.7 N (anterior region). Among all tricuspid positions, the maximum FP and minimum FP were 24.0 ± 9.2 N (trigonal region) and 4.5 ± 2.6 N (anterior region). Although for the MV, a given sample’s collagen content had no correlation to its corresponding FP, the same relationship was significant for the TV. Further, the TV exhibited comparable FP to the MV overall, despite a nearly 40% reduction in collagen content. These findings suggest that sutures placed in the trigonal region of the TV have higher pullout force than those placed along other segments of the annuli. Furthermore, there are likely differences in collagen orientation between the mitral and tricuspid annuli, such that collagen content strongly impacts FP in one, but not the other.

Keywords

Suture dehiscence Collagen Mitral annulus Tricuspid annulus Functional mitral regurgitation Functional tricuspid regurgitation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by a fellowship from the National Science Foundation (DGE-1148903: ELP) and Grants from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (HL113216, HL127570 and HL 104080). Additionally, Fatiesa Sulejmani is supported by the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Peking University Global Biomedical Engineering Research and Education Fellowship. The authors wish to thank Tausif Salim for his assistance with collagen quantification.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10237_2018_1082_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (22.1 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 1 Representative raw force-displacement curves for MV and TV annuli (PDF 22581 kb)

References

  1. Adams DH, Filsoufi F, Byrne JG, Karavas AN, Aklog L (2002) Mitral valve repair in redo cardiac surgery. J Card Surg 17(1):40–45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12027126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bax JJ, Braun J, Somer ST et al (2004) Restrictive annuloplasty and coronary revascularization in ischemic mitral regurgitation results in reverse left ventricular remodeling. Circulation.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000138196.06772.4e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bia D, Pessana F, Armentano R et al (2006) Cryopreservation procedure does not modify human carotid homografts mechanical properties: an isobaric and dynamic analysis. Cell Tissue Bank 7(3):183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-005-0655-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolling SF, Deeb GM, Brunsting LA, Bach DS (1995) Early outcome of mitral valve reconstruction in patients with end-stage cardiomyopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 109(Lv):676–682–683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5223(95)70348-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerfolio RJ, Orszulak TA, Pluth JR, Harmsen WS, Schaff HV (1996) Reoperation after valve repair for mitral regurgitation: early and intermediate results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111(6):1177–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumont E, Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH et al (2007) Reoperation after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease. Ann Thorac Surg 84:444–450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.03.078 (discussion 450) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Filsoufi F, Carpentier A (2007) Principles of reconstructive surgery in degenerative mitral valve disease. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 19(2):103–110.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2007.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerson CJ, Goldstein S, Heacox AE (2009) Retained structural integrity of collagen and elastin within cryopreserved human heart valve tissue as detected by two-photon laser scanning confocal microscopy. Cryobiology 59(2):171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2009.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghoreishi M, Brown JM, Stauffer CE et al (2011) Undersized tricuspid annuloplasty rings optimally treat functional tricuspid regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg 92(1):89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.03.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillinov AM, Cosgrove DM, Lytle BW et al (1997) Reoperation for failure of mitral valve repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 113(3):467–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70359-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kunzelman KS, Cochran RP (1992) Stress/strain characteristics of porcine mitral valve tissue: parallel versus perpendicular collagen orientation. J Cardiac Surg 7:71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8191.1992.tb00777.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levack MM, Vergnat M, Cheung AT, Acker MA, Gorman RC, Gorman JH (2012) Annuloplasty Ring dehiscence in ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg 94(6):2132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.04.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li K, Wang Q, Pham T, Sun W (2014) Quantification of structural compliance of aged human and porcine aortic root tissues. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 102(7):2365–2374.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky S (2000) Collagen: the fibrous proteins of the matrix. In: Molecular cell biology, Section 22.3Google Scholar
  15. Machiraju VR, Schaff HV, Svensson LG (2013) Redo cardiac surgery in adults.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1326-4 Google Scholar
  16. Martin C, Sun W (2012) Biomechanical characterization of aortic valve tissue in humans and common animal models. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 100 A(6):1591–1599.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin C, Pham T, Sun W (2011) Significant differences in the material properties between aged human and porcine aortic tissues. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg 40(1):28–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.08.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul DM, Naran A, Pierce EL, Bloodworth CH, Bolling SF, Yoganathan AP (2017) Suture dehiscence in the tricuspid annulus: an ex vivo analysis of tissue strength and composition. Ann Thorac Surg 104(3):820–826.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.02.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pfannmüller B, Doenst T, Eberhardt K, Seeburger J, Borger MA, Mohr FW (2012) Increased risk of dehiscence after tricuspid valve repair with rigid annuloplasty rings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143(5):1050–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pierce EL, Siefert AW, Paul DM et al (2016) How local annular force and collagen density govern mitral annuloplasty ring dehiscence risk. Ann Thorac Surg 102(2):518–526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.01.107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pierce EL, Bloodworth CH, Siefert AW et al (2017) Mitral annuloplasty ring suture forces: impact of surgeon, ring, and use conditions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.06.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siefert AW, Pierce EL, Lee M et al (2014) Suture forces in undersized mitral annuloplasty: novel device and measurements. Ann Thorac Surg 98(1):305–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.02.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh JP, Evans JC, Levy D et al (1999) Prevalence and clinical determinants of mitral, tricuspid, and aortic regurgitation (The Framingham Heart Study). Am J Cardiol 83(6):897–902.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(98)01064-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taramasso M, Pozzoli A, Guidotti A et al (2017) Percutaneous tricuspid valve therapies: the new frontier. Eur Heart J 38(9):639–647.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zachrisson H, Engström E, Engvall J, Wigström L, Smedby Ö, Persson A (2010) Soft tissue discrimination ex vivo by dual energy computed tomography. Eur J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zuo K, Pham T, Li K, Martin C, He Z, Sun W (2016) Characterization of biomechanical properties of aged human and ovine mitral valve chordae tendineae. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 62:607–618.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.05.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of Technology and Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations