A multiscale computational comparison of the bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in relation to calcific aortic stenosis

Abstract

Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) are more likely to develop a calcific aortic stenosis (CAS), as well as a number of other ailments, as compared to their cohorts with normal tricuspid aortic valves (TAV). It is currently unknown whether the increase in risk of CAS is caused by the geometric differences between the tricuspid and bicuspid valves or whether the increase in risk is caused by the same underlying factors that produce the geometric difference. CAS progression is understood to be a multiscale process, mediated at the cell level. In this study, we employ multiscale finite-element simulations of the valves. We isolate the effect of one geometric factor, the number of cusps, in order to explore its effect on multiscale valve mechanics, particularly in relation to CAS. The BAV and TAV are modeled by a set of simulations describing the cell, tissue, and organ length scales. These simulations are linked across the length scales to create a coherent multiscale model. At each scale, the models are three-dimensional, dynamic, and incorporate accurate nonlinear constitutive models of the valve leaflet tissue. We compare results between the TAV and BAV at each length scale. At the cell-scale, our region of interest is the location where calcification develops, near the aortic-facing surface of the leaflet. Our simulations show the observed differences between the tricuspid and bicuspid valves at the organ scale: the bicuspid valve shows greater flexure in the solid phase and stronger jet formation in the fluid phase relative to the tricuspid. At the cell-scale, however, we show that the region of interest is shielded against strain by the wrinkling of the fibrosa. Thus, the cellular deformations are not significantly different between the TAV and BAV in the calcification-prone region. This result supports the assertion that the difference in calcification observed in the BAV versus TAV may be due primarily to factors other than the simple geometric difference between the two valves.