biostudies-literatureGomez AAmerican Heart AssociationNHLBI NIH HHSNational Institutes of Health1365-1375https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8716675biostudies-literatureUnknown164(5)<h4>Objective</h4>Ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms carry a risk of acute type A dissection. Elective repair guidelines are designed around size thresholds, but the 1-dimensional parameter of maximum diameter cannot predict acute events in small aneurysms. Biomechanically, dissection can occur when wall stress exceeds strength. Patient-specific ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm wall stresses may be a better predictor of dissection. Our aim was to compare wall stresses in tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms based on diameter.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm and diameter 4.0 cm or greater (n = 221) were divided into groups by 0.5-cm diameter increments. Three-dimensional geometries were reconstructed from computed tomography images, and finite element models were developed taking into account prestress geometries. A fiber-embedded hyperelastic material model was applied to obtain longitudinal and circumferential wall stress distributions under systolic pressure. Median stresses with interquartile ranges were determined. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparisons between size groups.<h4>Results</h4>Peak longitudinal wall stresses for tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm were 290 (265-323) kPa for size 4.0 to 4.4 cm versus 330 (296-359) kPa for 4.5 to 4.9 cm versus 339 (320-373) kPa for 5.0 to 5.4 cm versus 318 (293-351) kPa for 5.5 to 5.9 cm versus 373 (363-449) kPa for 6.0 cm or greater (P = 8.7e-8). Peak circumferential wall stresses were 460 (421-543) kPa for size 4.0 to 4.4 cm versus 503 (453-569) kPa for 4.5 to 4.9 cm versus 549 (430-588) kPa for 5.0 to 5.4 cm versus 540 (471-608) kPa for 5.5 to 5.9 cm versus 596 (506-649) kPa for 6.0 cm or greater (P = .0007).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Circumferential and longitudinal wall stresses are higher as diameter increases, but size groups had large overlap of stress ranges. Wall stress thresholds based on aneurysm wall strength may be a better predictor of patient-specific risk of dissection than diameter in small ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgeryAssociation of diameter and wall stresses of tricuspid aortic valve ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms.PMC8716675K25HL150408K25 HL15040810-0359413-10932R01HL119857-01A120POST35211107R01 HL119857Guccione JMTseng EEHope MDSaloner DAXuan YGe LWang ZGomez AfalseAssociation of diameter and wall stresses of tricuspid aortic valve ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms.<h4>Objective</h4>Ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms carry a risk of acute type A dissection. Elective repair guidelines are designed around size thresholds, but the 1-dimensional parameter of maximum diameter cannot predict acute events in small aneurysms. Biomechanically, dissection can occur when wall stress exceeds strength. Patient-specific ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm wall stresses may be a better predictor of dissection. Our aim was to compare wall stresses in tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms based on diameter.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm and diameter 4.0 cm or greater (n = 221) were divided into groups by 0.5-cm diameter increments. Three-dimensional geometries were reconstructed from computed tomography images, and finite element models were developed taking into account prestress geometries. A fiber-embedded hyperelastic material model was applied to obtain longitudinal and circumferential wall stress distributions under systolic pressure. Median stresses with interquartile ranges were determined. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparisons between size groups.<h4>Results</h4>Peak longitudinal wall stresses for tricuspid aortic valve-associated ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm were 290 (265-323) kPa for size 4.0 to 4.4 cm versus 330 (296-359) kPa for 4.5 to 4.9 cm versus 339 (320-373) kPa for 5.0 to 5.4 cm versus 318 (293-351) kPa for 5.5 to 5.9 cm versus 373 (363-449) kPa for 6.0 cm or greater (P = 8.7e-8). Peak circumferential wall stresses were 460 (421-543) kPa for size 4.0 to 4.4 cm versus 503 (453-569) kPa for 4.5 to 4.9 cm versus 549 (430-588) kPa for 5.0 to 5.4 cm versus 540 (471-608) kPa for 5.5 to 5.9 cm versus 596 (506-649) kPa for 6.0 cm or greater (P = .0007).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Circumferential and longitudinal wall stresses are higher as diameter increases, but size groups had large overlap of stress ranges. Wall stress thresholds based on aneurysm wall strength may be a better predictor of patient-specific risk of dissection than diameter in small ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms.2022-01-01T00:00:00Z2022 Nov2025-04-04T13:41:04.728Z2025-04-04T13:41:04.728ZS-EPMC87166753427561810.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.05.049