Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and additional risk factors on outcome after aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Four thousand one hundred and thirty-one patients who were operated between May 1996 and April 2004 were evaluated. One thousand eight hundred and fifty-six patients received bileaflet mechanical AVR and 2275 stented xenograft AVR. PPM was defined as severe if manufacturers effective orifice area (EOA) divided by body surface area (BSA) was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and as moderate in the range of 0.65-0.85 cm(2)/m(2). PPM, age, gender, EOA index, emergency indication for surgery (within 24h), EuroSCORE as well as requirement for additional procedures were tested. Univariate (Fisher's exact test) and multivariate logistic regression analysis as well as survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) were performed. RESULTS: Severe PPM was present in 97 (2.4%) and moderate PPM in 1103 (26.7%) patients. PPM occurs more frequently with xenograft AVR. In-hospital mortality was 5.2% for severe, 10.6% for moderate and 6.9% with no PPM (p=0.018, OR 1.4). Moderate PPM was independently predictive for short- and long-term mortality. Further analysis revealed patient age >70 years (n=1589, p=0.002, OR 1.85), emergency indication (n=374, p<0.001, OR 4.4), EuroSCORE >10 (n=494, p<0.001, OR 4.7) and additional cardiac procedures (n=2049, p<0.001, OR 2.0) as predictors for adverse outcome after AVR. CONCLUSION: Severe PPM is rare; moderate PPM is present in a quarter of patients. PPM has a significant impact on short- and long-term mortality after AVR.     

Patient-prosthesis mismatch after small-size stentless aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (P-PM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a small-size Cryolife O'Brien (CLOB) bioprosthesis and to evaluate its clinical and hemodynamic implications. METHODs: Sixty-two patients (mean age 70.9 +/- 5.2 years, 77.8% females), receiving a labeled 21-23 mm CLOB between 1993 and 2000, were retrospectively studied. Effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated by the continuity equation and then indexed to the patient's body surface area (BSA) to obtain the indexed EOA (EOAI). Based on previous observations a mismatch was defined as EOAI or= 0.8 cm/m2 showed an earlier concentric remodeling up to 1 year; no difference was demonstrated at later studies between groups. Survival and clinical status results were not affected by an EOAI 相似文献   

Patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the elderly

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on survival and left ventricular mass regression in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients >65 years old who underwent isolated AVR from 1990 and 2007 were analyzed retrospectively. A bioprosthesis was used in 42 cases and a mechanical valve in 59. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 years (0.1-14.2 years). The indexed effective orifice area (i-EOA) was determined from echocardiographic data in clinical reports in the literature and indexed to body surface area (cm2/m2). Mild PPM was defined as an i-EOA between 0.65 and 0.85. We also evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and the left ventricular mass (LVM) index. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (33.6%) had PPM. No patient had an i-EOA <0.65. Freedom from valve-related death was 86.3% +/- 6.7% in the PPM-negative group and 85.7% +/- 7.9% in the PPM-positive group at 5 years after AVR. The mean LVM index (g/m2) decreased significantly (P < 0.01), from 239.2 to 167.4 in the PPM-negative group and from 229.1 to 154.4 in the PPM-positive group, respectively. NYHA functional status was excellent at late follow-up in both groups. CONCLUSION: Mild PPM occurred in a large proportion of elderly patients undergoing AVR but did not affect midterm survival or LV mass regression.     

主动脉瓣置换术后人工心脏瓣膜-病人不匹配现象

目的 探讨主动脉瓣置换术后人工心脏瓣膜-病人不匹配(PPM)现象的发生率以及PPM与术后早期血流动力学和病死率的关系.方法 292例主动脉瓣置换手术(AVR)病人,参照人工瓣膜有效开口面积(EOA)和病人的体表面积计算有效开口面积指数(EOAI),EOAI＞0.85 cm2/m2不存在或仅有轻度的PPM;中度PPM 0.65≤EOAI≤0.85 cm2/m2;重度PPM EOAI＜0.65 cm2/m2.超声多普勒测量AVR术后主动脉瓣位平均跨瓣压差和血流速度,比较不同种类瓣膜(机械瓣和生物瓣)和不同大小瓣膜(＞21 mm和≤21 mm)AVR术后PPM发生率以及PPM与术后早期血流动力学、病死率的关系.结果 292例中机械瓣置换术219例,生物瓣置换术73例,两种术后中度PPM发生率分别为6.25%和48.22%(P＜0.01).置换＞21 mm人工瓣膜(191例)和≤21 mm人工瓣膜(101例)术后PPM发生率分别为13.61%和33.66%(P＜0.05).PPM组术后主动脉瓣平均跨瓣压差和平均流速[(26.50±6.25)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(2.66±0.87)m/s]显著高于非PPM组[(16.75±3.46)mm Hg和(1.58±0.47)m/s,P＜0.01].PPM组和非PPM组的术后早期病死率分别为6.67%和2.16%(P＜0.05).结论 AVR术后PPM现象普遍存在,尤其是置换生物瓣以及小瓣膜(≤21 mm)者.PPM影响术后瓣膜血流动力学,与术后早期病死率密切相关.     

Long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with a small aortic prosthesis.

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an effective treatment for patients with aortic valvular disease, the implantation of a small aortic prosthesis may result in residual left ventricular outflow stenosis and transvalvular gradient. In this study, the outcome in the long-term period of patients treated with a small aortic prosthesis was analyzed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients with AVR were divided into two groups, group A and group B. Group A consisted of 16 patients with 21 mm-sized prosthetic valves, and group B consisted of 8 patients with 19 or 16 mm-sized prosthetic valves. There were no significant differences in preoperative cardiac function or operative procedure in the two groups. The mean follow-up period (months) was 55.0 in group A and 51.3 in group B. RESULTS: One patient died of cerebral infarction in group A. There were no significant differences in cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) between the two groups. Postoperative physical activity according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification showed no significant differences in the two groups. Despite using a small prostheses for AVR, the postoperative course was good in the long-term period, although careful follow-up is necessary.     

Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to quantify the relationship between prosthesis size adjusted for patient size (prosthesis-patient size) and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Data from nine representative sources on 13,258 aortic valve replacements provided 69,780 patient-years of follow-up (mean 5.3 +/- 4.7 years), with reliable survival estimates to 15 years. Prostheses included 5757 stented porcine xenografts, 3198 stented bovine pericardial xenografts, 3583 mechanical valves, and 720 allografts. Manufacturers' labeled prosthesis size was 19 mm or smaller in 1109 patients. Expressions of prosthesis-patient size assessed were indexed internal prosthesis orifice area (in centimeters squared per square meter of body surface area) and standardized internal prosthesis orifice size (Z, the number of SDs from mean normal native aortic valve size). Multivariable hazard domain analysis with balancing score and risk factor adjustment quantified the association of prosthesis-patient size with survival. RESULTS: Prosthesis-patient size down to at least 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not adversely affect intermediate- or long-term survival (P >.2). However, 30-day mortality increased 1% to 2% when indexed orifice area fell below 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) (P =.002) or standardized orifice size fell below -2.5 Z (P =.0003). The increased early risk affected fewer than 1% of patients receiving bioprostheses but about 25% of those receiving mechanical devices. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic prosthesis-patient size down to 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not reduce intermediate- or long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. However, patient-prosthesis size under 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or -2.5 Z was associated with a 1% to 2% increase in 30-day mortality. Prosthesis-patient sizes this small or smaller were rarely implanted in patients receiving bioprostheses.     

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement

Objective

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may affect clinical outcomes in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR). We retrospectively examined the PPM in patients with isolated AVR in the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JACVSD).

Methods

We examined all patients with isolated AVR between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The JACVSD data collection form has a total of 255 variables. We defined PPM as an effective orifice area index of ≤0.85 m²/cm².

Results

PPM was observed in 306 of 3,609 cases analyzed, PPM rate was 8.5 %. Body surface area was larger and body mass index was higher in the PPM group than the non-PPM group (P < 0.001). Patients with PPM were older (P = 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes (P = 0.004), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001), hypertension (P < 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (P = 0.031), old myocardial infarction (P = 0.006), previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention (P = 0.001), coronary artery disease (P = 0.018), and aortic valve stenosis (P < 0.001). Perioperative blood transfusion (P < 0.001) and dialysis (P = 0.005) were more frequent in the PPM group. Postoperative ventilation (P = 0.004) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.004) were significantly longer in the PPM group.

Conclusions

Age, aortic valve stenosis, dyslipidemia, hypertension, old myocardial infarction, previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease, and high body mass index were the risk factors for PPM. PPM was not an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.     

主动脉瓣置换术中人工心脏瓣膜-患者不匹配现象的预防

目的 总结主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)中预防人工心脏瓣膜-患者不匹配(PPM)现象的措施和效果.方法 2010年2月至2011年12月,357例接受主动脉瓣置换术患者参照人工心脏瓣膜的有效开口面积(EOA)和患者的体表面积计算有效开口面积指数(EOAI),将EOAI ＞0.85 cm2/m2定义为不存在或仅有轻度的PPM,0.65≤EOAI≤0.85 cm2/m2定义为中度PPM,EOAI＜0.65 cm2/m2定义为重度PPM.术中采用“三步法”预防PPM.若患者主动脉瓣环过小,则采用以下3种方法:(1)主动脉瓣置换采用单针单线不带垫片间断缝合技术;(2)应用新型人工心脏瓣膜;(3)主动脉瓣环扩大手术.结果 357例AVR,置换机械瓣272例、生物瓣85例.本组49例AVR采用单针单线间断缝合法.38例应用新型人工心脏瓣膜,11例应用主动脉瓣环扩大手术.357例手术的PPM总发生率为6.4％,但无重度PPM发生.置换机械瓣的PPM发生率为1.8％,而生物瓣为21.2％.结论 AVR术中采取适当措施可以有效预防术后PPM现象的发生.     

Rare prosthesis failure after aortic valve replacement with a Freedom Solo

We report an unusual case of a 78-year-old man readmitted to our Cardiac Surgery Division due to a severe regurgitation of the stentless bioprosthesis Freedom Solo implanted, strictly following the manufacturer's recommendations, approximately six months before for aortic stenosis of native valve. Although different possible etiologies may be determined for the subacute aortic regurgitation of a bioprosthesis, a partial adhesion of a leaflet to the aortic wall represents an exceptional event. The device was explanted, a new different bioprosthesis model was implanted and the patient recovered uneventfully. But no evidence of aortic or leaflet vegetations suggesting for abscess was found, neither atheromatous or calcified plaques, nor signs of inflammation of the aortic wall were detected. In the end, it is believed that the cause of the cuspal adhesion to the aortic sinus was primary tissue failure.     

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable?

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated favorable results despite patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement with the use of third generation prostheses. Our aim was to determine whether this mismatch is always tolerable. METHODS: A clinical-echocardiographic study has been performed in 339 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement because of aortic stenosis. In-hospital outcome and left ventricular mass index regression (1st month-1st year) were analyzed in the presence or absence of mismatch (indexed effective orifice area < or =0.85cm(2)/m(2)). The influence of high degrees of preoperative left ventricular mass on in-hospital mortality has also been evaluated. Left ventricular mass index was considered increased if the calculated value was over the superior quartile of the frequency distribution of all the values observed in both sexes. RESULTS: Mismatch was found in 38% of the patients. In the absence of mismatch, the absolute mass regression was proportional to the preoperative left ventricular mass. This regression was higher in patients with increased left ventricular mass indexed (vs not increased): -38.0+/-7.8 vs -8.8+/-4.7g/m(2), p<0.01 (1st month) and -67.7+/-16.9vs -23.5+/-6.7g/m(2), p<0.05 (1st year). Mass regression was impaired in the presence of mismatch, particularly, in patients with previously increased left ventricular mass: -8.2+/-11.6 vs -5.6+/-6.3g/m(2) (p=0.83) and -24.6+/-12.6 vs -11.7+/-10.5g/m(2) (p=0.54). This worse regression was reflected on a 100% incidence of residual hypertrophy at follow-up (1st month-1st year). In the presence of mismatch, increased ventricular mass was associated with higher mortality: 14.7% vs 2.1% (p<0.01). In the absence of mismatch, ventricular mass was not associated with mortality: 4.1 vs 2.5% (p=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe ventricular hypertrophy it may be important to elude patient-prosthesis mismatch to avoid a significant increase in mortality and improve ventricular mass regression. Mismatch may be tolerable in those patients with lesser degree of hypertrophy.