Comparative review of large animal models for suitability of proximal aortic endovascular repair

Authors

  • Abhishekh Srinivas BMedSc/MD. Department of Surgery, Monash University, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Ming Yii MBBS, FRACS (Vascular), MPH. Department of Surgery, Monash University, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Julian A. Smith MBBS, MS, FRACS (Cardiothoracics), FAICD. Department of Surgery, Monash University, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1244-4277

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2022.763

Keywords:

Aortic dissection, Endovascular, Ascending aorta, Animal models

Abstract

Background

The advent of TEVAR heralds a paradigm shift in treating descending aortopathies and is viewed as a potential option for ascending aortic dissection (AD) repair too. Currently, TEVAR’s usage for ascending aortopathies remains limited. Consequently, an urgent requirement exists to choose appropriate animal models to better contemporary understanding of endovascularly treating Type-A ADs.

This review article provides a summary of current literature on this topic. Two broad sections are covered, including the macroscopic differences between adult swine, ovine and porcine species versus that of their human counterparts, as well as the valvular, aortic and coronary vasculature variances.

 

Methods

A narrative review was conducted to integrate current findings of anatomical differences in valvular and ascending aortic anatomy amongst the aforementioned species. An electronic search of PubMed and Ovid Medline databases from January 1965 to June 2020 was performed, limited to articles published in English. 

 

Results

Whilst macroscopic anatomy remains grossly similar, differences in valvular leaflet shape are present, with swine and porcine models possessing anatomic characteristics that are comparable to their human counterparts. Research into inter-species ascending aortic anatomy has not been extensively performed, highlighting a literature gap. Conversely, multiple morphological studies have highlighted that swine coronary vasculature is closely resemblant to that of man.

 

Conclusion

Both swine and ovine species are suitable as appropriate animal models in examining the feasibility of endovascular stent-grafts for ascending ADs. However, given the similarities in coronary and aortic valve anatomy to their human analogues, porcine models are better suited for this purpose.

References

Cesarovic N, Lipiski M, Falk V, Emmert M. Animals in cardiovascular research: Clinical relevance and translational limitations of animal models in cardiovascular medicine. EHJ. 2020; 41(2),200-3.

Criado F. Aortic Dissection: A 250-Year Perspective. Tex Heart Inst J. 2011; 8(6):694-700.

Fujimura N, Kawaguchi S, Obara H, Yoshitake A, Inoue M, Otsubo S et al. Anatomic Feasibility of Next-Generation Stent Grafts for the Management of Type A Aortic Dissection in Japanese Patients. Circ J. 2017; 81:1388–94.

Chiu P, Miller DC. Evolution of surgical therapy for Stanford acute type A aortic dissection. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 5(4):275-95.

Scholl F, Coady M, Davies R. Interval or Permanent Nonoperative Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection. JAMA Surgery. 1999; 134(4):402-6.

Auer J, Berent R, Eber B. Aortic Dissection: Incidence, Natural History and Impact of Surgery. Journal of Clinical and Basic Cardiology. 2000; 3(3),151-4.

Fann JI, Smith JA, Miller DC, et al. Surgical management of aortic dissection during a 30-year period. Circulation 1995; 92(2):113.

Becker H, Jauch K. Vascular Surgery. 1st Edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1989. p. 349-60

Shah A, Khoynezhad A. Thoracic endovascular repair for acute type A aortic dissection: operative technique. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 5(4):389-96.

Kreibich M, Rylski B, Kondov S, Morlock J, Scheumann J, Kari F et al. Endovascular treatment of acute Type A aortic dissection—the Endo Bentall approach. J Vis Surg. 2018; 1(4):69.

Heilmann C, Stahl R, Schneider C, Sukhodolya T, Siepe M, Olschewski M et al. Wound complications after median sternotomy: a single-centre study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013; 16(5):643-8.

Luciani G, Lucchese G. Minimal-access median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Dis. 2013; 5(Suppl 6): S650–3.

Sarkar M, Prabhu V. Basics of cardiopulmonary bypass. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(9):760–7.

Zanotti G, Reece TB, Aftab M. Aortic Arch Pathology: Surgical Options for the Aortic Arch Replacement. Cardiol Clin. 2017; 35(3):367-85.

Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Morgan R, Loftus IM, Jahangiri M, Thompson MM. Progress in endovascular management of type A dissection. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012; 44(4):406-10.

Kreibich M, Soekeland T, Beyersdorf F, Bavaria J, Schröfel H, Czerny M et al. Anatomic feasibility of an endovascular valve–carrying conduit for the treatment of type A aortic dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019; 157(1):26-34.e1.

Harky A, Al-Adhami A. Stenting in type A aortic dissection: fantasy or reality? J Vis Surg. 2018; 4(161):1-3.

Mangialardi N, Serrao E, Ronchey S, Kasemi H, Orico M. Endovascular Treatment of Type A Dissections. Endovascular Today. 2013 Nov. Available from: https://evtoday.com/articles/2013-nov/endovascular-treatment-of-type-a-dissections

University of Minnesota. Comparative Anatomy of the Valves. Available from: http://www.vhlab.umn.edu/atlas/comparative-anatomy-tutorial/external-anatomy.shtml. Last updated [Jan 14,2019]; cited [Jan 20,2020].

Sands M, Rittenhouse E, Mohri H, Merendino K. An Anatomical Comparison of Human, Pig, Calf, and Sheep Aortic Valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 1969; 8(5):407-14.

University of Minnesota. Comparative Anatomy of the Valves. Available from: http://www.vhlab.umn.edu/atlas/comparative-anatomy-tutorial/valves.shtml. Last updated Jan 14,2019; cited Jan 20,2020.

Wang C, Lachat M, Regar E, von Segesser L, Maisano F, Ferrari E. Suitability of the porcine aortic model for transcatheter aortic root repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 26(6):1002-8.

Tao L, Xianhao B, Yuxi Z, Ziwen L, Ziyi X, Zhaoxiang Z et al. Thoracic aortic computed tomography angiography in porcine: establishment of a baseline for endovascular evaluation of the ascending aorta. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020:31(2):248-53

Khan S, Islam M. Studies on the Prospect of Bioprostheses by Bovine Aortic Valve for Human Use. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull. 1991; 17(2):75-80

Hyun Joh J, Ahn H, Park H. Reference Diameters of the Abdominal Aorta and Iliac Arteries in the Korean Population. Yonsei Med J. 2013; 54(1):48-54.

Jonker F, Mojibian H, Schlösser F, Botta D, Indes J, Moll F et al. The Impact of Hypovolaemic Shock on the Aortic Diameter in a Porcine Model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010; 40(1):564-71.

DiVincenti L, Westcott R, Lee C. Sheep (Ovis aries) as a Model for Cardiovascular Surgery and Management before, during, and after Cardiopulmonary Bypass J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2014; 53(5):439-48.

Dumfarth J, Chou A, Ziganshin B, Bhandari R, Peterss S, Tranquilli M et al. Atypical aortic arch branching variants: A novel marker for thoracic aortic disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 149(6):1586-92.

Layton K, Kallmes D, Cloft H, Lindell E, Cox V. Bovine Aortic Arch Variant in Humans: Clarification of a Common Misnomer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006; 27(7):1541-2.

Torad F, Amer M, Shamaa A, Elsherpieny E. Echocardiographic measurements and indices in normal adult buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2016;45(1):336-41.

Devereux R, Simone G, Arnett D, Best L, Boerwinkle E, Howard B et al. Normal Limits in Relation to Age, Body Size and Gender of Two- Dimensional Echocardiographic Aortic Root Dimensions in Persons ?15 Years of Age. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110(8):1189-94.

Braun U, Schweizer T. Determination of Heart Dimensions in Cattle via 2-D-mode Echocardiography. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2001;114(2):46-50.

Sahni D, Kaur G, Jit H, Jit I. Anatomy & Distribution of Coronary Arteries in Pig in Comparison With Man. Indian J Med Res. 2008;127(6):564-70/

Weaver M, Pantely G, Bristow J, Ladley H. A Quantitative Study of the Anatomy and Distribution of Coronary Arteries in Porcine in Comparison With Other Animals and Man. Cardiovasc Res. 1986;20(12):907-17.

Gómez F, Ballesteros L. Evaluation of coronary dominance in pigs; a comparative study with findings in human hearts. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2015;67(3):783-9.

Frink R, Merrick B. The Sheep Heart: Coronary and Conduction System Anatomy With Special Reference to the Presence of an Os Cordis. Anat Rec. 1974;179(2):189-200.

Scansen B. Coronary Artery Anomalies in Animals. Vet. Sci. 2017;4(2):20.

Barszcz K, Polguj M, Kle?kowska-Nawrot J, Go?dziewska-Har?ajczuk K, Olbrych K, Czopowicz M. Morphometry and topography of the coronary ostia in the European bison. Folia Morphol. 2019;79(1):105-12.

Gómez F, Cortés L, Ballesteros L. Morphological characterisation of the coronary arteries in African sheep (Ovis orientalis). Differential analysis with those of humans and other animal species. Folia Morphol. 2018;78(1):63-70.

Pham T, Martin C, Elefteriades J, Sun W. Biomechanical characterisation of ascending aortic aneurysm with concomitant bicuspid aortic valve and bovine aortic arch. Acta Biomater. 2013 ;9(8):7927-36.

Ho S. Structure and anatomy of the aortic root. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10(1):3-10.

Downloads

Published

2022-04-25

How to Cite

Srinivas, A., Yii, M., & Smith, J. A. (2022). Comparative review of large animal models for suitability of proximal aortic endovascular repair. International Journal of Medical Students. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2022.763

Issue

Section

Review