loading page

Aortic valve leaflet and root dimensions in normal tricuspid aortic valves: a computed tomography study
  • +1
  • Matija Jelenc,
  • Blaž Jelenc,
  • Gregor Poglajen,
  • Nikola Lakič
Matija Jelenc
Univerzitetni Klinični Center Ljubljana

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Blaž Jelenc
Univerza v Ljubljani Fakulteta za matematiko in fiziko
Author Profile
Gregor Poglajen
Univerzitetni Klinični Center Ljubljana
Author Profile
Nikola Lakič
Univerzitetni Klinični Center Ljubljana
Author Profile


Background and aim of the study Objective of this analysis was to use coronary computed tomography in patients with normal tricuspid aortic valves to perform detailed aortic root and aortic valve geometric analysis with focus on asymmetry of the three leaflets. Materials and methods We analyzed aortic valves in 70 anonymized coronary computed tomography angiograms. Mean patient age was 53 ± 11 years. All aortic valves were tricuspid, without calcifications and aortic roots were of normal dimensions. Asymmetry of the three leaflets in individual patients was assessed by calculating absolute and relative differences between the largest and the smallest of the three leaflets. Results Some degree of asymmetry was present in all analyzed valves. Absolute and relative differences for free margin length were 3.2 ± 1.4 mm and 9.3 ± 3.8%, respectively. The largest relative difference was noted in coaptation area (36.5 ± 16.5%) and the smallest in leaflet effective height (6.1 ± 4.8%). Using predefined cut-off criteria for absolute differences in leaflet dimensions, 86% of the valves were classified as asymmetric. Conclusions Equal free margin length of the three leaflets is not needed for normal tricuspid aortic valve function. Aligning the leaflet free margin length in standardized aortic valve repair may not be necessary in tricuspid aortic valve repair, whereas equalization of effective leaflet heights is.
30 Jan 2022Submitted to Journal of Cardiac Surgery
31 Jan 2022Submission Checks Completed
31 Jan 2022Assigned to Editor
31 Jan 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Feb 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
21 Feb 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Major
06 Mar 20221st Revision Received
07 Mar 2022Submission Checks Completed
07 Mar 2022Assigned to Editor
07 Mar 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
25 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
06 Apr 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
Aug 2022Published in Journal of Cardiac Surgery volume 37 issue 8 on pages 2350-2357. 10.1111/jocs.16587