Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Echocardiography

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) is the world's premier clinical outcomes registry for adult cardiac surgery and a driving force for quality improvement in cardiac surgery. Echocardiographic data provide a wealth of hemodynamic, structural, and functional data and have been part of STS ACSD data collection since its inception. An increasing body of evidence suggests that the use of echocardiography in patients undergoing cardiac surgery has a positive impact on postoperative outcomes. In this report, we describe and summarize the type and rate of reporting of echocardiography-related variables in the STS ACSD, including the Adult Cardiac Anesthesiology Module, from July 2017 to December 2019 for the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedures. With this review, we aim to increase awareness of the importance of collecting accurate and consistent echocardiography data in the STS ACSD and to highlight opportunities for growth and improvement.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Aortic prosthetic size predictor in aortic valve replacement

Background

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a major concern in aortic valve replacement (AVR) and leads to perioperative morbidity and rehospitalization. Predicting aortic annulus diameter pre-procedurally is crucial to managing patients with high-risk of PPM.

Objectives

To compare preoperative measurements of aortic annulus from echocardiography and CT scan with surgical sizing and develop an imaging-based algorithm to predict PPM.

Methods

From January 2017 to December 2020, patients underwent AVR at a teaching hospital were examined. The relationship between imaging measurements with operative values was assesed using scatter plots and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Univariable linear regression was then used to build the predictive model.

Results

A total of 144 patients underwent AVR during the study period. Suture types and surgical approaches were not significantly associated with prosthesis size. CT scan-based measurements showed strong correlation with prosthesis size: mean diameter (R = 0.79), perimeter-derived diameter (R = 0.76), and area-derived diameter (R = 0.75). Mechanical valve and tissue valve shared similar correlation coefficients. Prosthesis size predictive models based on CT scan were 12.89 + 0.335 × d for mean diameter, 13.275 + 0.315 × d for perimeter-derived diameter and 13.626 + 0.309 × d for area-derived diameter.

Conclusions

Preoperative CT scan measurements are a reliable predictor of aortic prosthesis size. Transthoracic echocardiography is a possible alternative, though it is highly performer-dependent and unable to represent the aortic annulus fully. Together, these two imaging modalities can be used to quantitatively anticipate PPM preoperatively.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects late survival after valve surgery for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patient with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains unclear. Also, late follow-up in previous studies is confined to only one decade. We aimed to determine the effect of PPM on late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during 25 years of follow-up.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine late survival in 404 consecutive patients with moderate PPM (N.=86), severe (N.=11), or no/mild PPM (N.=307) after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Moderate, severe, and no/mild PPM were defined as indexed effective orifice area of >0.65≤0.85, ≤0.65, and >0.85 cm2/m2, respectively. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify possible independent predictors of decreased late survival, including moderate or severe PPM.

RESULTS

Late survival of patients with severe PPM was worse in comparison with those with no/mild PPM: 7.4±2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2-12.5) vs. 13.6±0.5 (95% confidence interval 12.6-14.6) years, respectively; P=0.020. Late survival of patients with moderate PPM was similar to those with no/mild PPM. Severe PPM was an independent predictor of decreased late survival: hazards ratio 4.002 (95% confidence interval 1.869-8.569); P<0.001. Moderate PPM was not an independent predictor of decreased late survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM was independently associated with decreased late survival after isolated AVR for symptomatic severe AS during a mean follow-up of 25.0±2.9 years. Therefore, severe PPM should be prevented as much as possible.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM_M) versus predicted PPM (PPM_P) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series.

METHODS

The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m² (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m² (≤0.55 if obese). PPM_M was determined by the core lab-measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM_P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM_P1; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM_P2; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization.

RESULTS

The incidence of moderate and severe PPM_P was much lower than PPM_M in both SAVR (PPM_P1: 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM_M: 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM_P1: 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM_P2: 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM_M: 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM_M and severe PPM_P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM_P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM_P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR.

The fallacy of indexed effective orifice area charts to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch after prosthesis implantation

Aims 

Indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) charts are used to determine the likelihood of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study is to validate whether these EOAi charts, based on echocardiographic normal reference values, can accurately predict PPM.

Methods and results 

In the PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial, 986 patients with aortic valve stenosis/regurgitation underwent AVR with an Avalus valve. Patients were randomly split (50:50) into training and test sets. The mean measured EOAs for each valve size from the training set were used to create an Avalus EOAi chart. This chart was subsequently used to predict PPM in the test set and measures of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value) were assessed. PPM was defined by an EOAi ≤0.85 cm²/m^2, and severe PPM was defined as EOAi ≤0.65 cm²/m². The reference values obtained from the training set ranged from 1.27 cm² for size 19 mm up to 1.81 cm² for size 27 mm. The test set had an incidence of 66% of PPM and 24% of severe PPM. The EOAi chart inaccurately predicted PPM in 30% of patients and severe PPM in 22% of patients. For the prediction of PPM, the sensitivity was 87% and the specificity 37%. For the prediction of severe PPM, the sensitivity was 13% and the specificity 98%.

Conclusion 

The use of echocardiographic normal reference values for EOAi charts to predict PPM is unreliable due to the large proportion of misclassifications.

Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective area of a prosthetic valve inserted into a patient is inferior to that of a normal human valve; the hemodynamic consequence of a valve too small compared with the size of the patient's body is the generation of higher than expected transprosthetic gradients. Despite evidence of increased risk of short- and long-term mortality and of structural valve degeneration in patients with PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement, its clinical impact in patients subject to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is yet unclear. We aim to review and update on the definition and incidence of PPM after TAVI, and its prognostic implications in the overall population and in higher-risk subgroups, such as small aortic annuli or valve-in-valve procedures. Last, we will focus on the armamentarium available in order to reduce risk of PPM when planning a TAVI procedure.

Implications of Coexisting Aortic Regurgitation in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Background

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common comorbidity in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), but coexisting AR has often been excluded from major clinical studies on AS. The impact of coexisting AR on the natural history of AS has not been well-described.

Objectives

The authors compared clinical outcomes in medically managed patients with moderate-to-severe AS with or without coexisting AR.

Methods

Consecutive patients (N = 1,188) with index echocardiographic diagnosis of moderate-to-severe AS (aortic valve area <1.5 cm²) were studied. All patients were medically managed and were divided into those with coexisting AR (at least moderate severity) and those without. Adverse composite clinical outcomes were defined as mortality or admissions for congestive cardiac failure on subsequent follow-up. The authors compared differences in clinical profile and outcomes between the groups.

Results

There were 88 patients (7.4%) with coexisting AR and AS. These patients did not differ significantly in age, but had lower body mass index (22.9 ± 3.8 vs 25.3 ± 5.1 kg/m²), lower diastolic blood pressure (68.7 ± 10.7 vs 72.2 ± 12.3 mm Hg), larger end-diastolic volume index (68.8 ± 18.8 vs 60.4 ± 17.8 mL/m²) and larger left ventricular mass index (118.6 ± 36.4 vs 108.9 ± 33.1 g/m²). The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors did not differ significantly. Coexisting AR was associated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes (log-rank 4.20; P = 0.040). On multivariable Cox regression, coexisting AR remained independently associated with adverse outcomes (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.02-1.82) after adjusting for age, AS severity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of study.

Conclusions

In patients with AS, coexisting AR was associated with changes in echocardiographic profile and adverse outcomes.

Predictors and Clinical Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Self-Expandable TAVR in Small Annuli

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to define predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves (SEVs) in patients with small annuli.

BACKGROUND

TAVR seems to reduce the risk for PPM compared with surgical aortic valve replacement, especially in patients with small aortic annuli. Nevertheless, predictors and impact of PPM in this population have not been clarified yet.

METHODS

Predictors of PPM and all-cause mortality were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis from the cohort of the TAVI-SMALL (International Multicenter Registry to Evaluate the Performance of Self-Expandable Valves in Small Aortic Annuli) registry, which included patients with severe aortic stenosis and small annuli (annular perimeter <72 mm or area <400 mm² on computed tomography) treated with transcatheter SEVs: 445 patients with (n = 129) and without (n = 316) PPM were enrolled.

RESULTS

Intra-annular valves conferred increased risk for PPM (odds ratio [OR]: 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 4.81), while post-dilation (OR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.25-0.84) and valve oversizing (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.28-1.00) seemed to protect against PPM occurrence. At a median follow-up of 354 days, patients with severe PPM, but not those with moderate PPM, had a higher all-cause mortality rate compared with those without PPM (log-rank p = 0.008). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed severe PPM as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 4.27; 95% CI: 1.34 to 13.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter SEV implantation, use of intra-annular valves yielded higher risk for PPM; conversely, post-dilation and valve oversizing protected against PPM occurrence. Severe PPM was independently associated with all-cause mortality.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on early and long-term survival after aortic replacement with the Edwards Perimount valve: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the impact of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) related to the Edwards Lifesciences Perimount (EP) bioprosthesis in the aortic position on early in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival.

METHODS

A total of 5964 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement at the Bristol Heart Institute between 1998 and 2014, 2667 representing the cohort of this study received EP. PPM was defined severe as EOAi < 0.65 cm² /m² . To minimize bias, propensity score matching was conducted and two groups A and B (without and with severe PPM) of 320 patients with similar preoperative characteristics were matched. We assessed early in-hospital outcomes including CVA, re-exploration for bleeding, low cardiac output, wound infection, acute renal injury, length of hospital stay, and long-term survival for both groups in unmatched and matched populations.

RESULTS

In the unmatched analysis, 18.3% of patients had severe PPM. Severe PPM was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (4.5% vs. 2.9%, respectively, p = .09) or any other early adverse outcomes except increased length of hospital stay (10.57 ± 8.2 vs. 11.7 ± 9.4, respectively, p = .01). Long-term survival differed significantly between groups at 2 and 8 years (91.8% vs. 91.4% and 60.5% vs. 55.7%, respectively, p = .02). Matched analysis showed no differences between the groups in early health outcomes and overall survival at 2 and 8 years was also similar (89.7% vs. 91% and 57.3% vs. 58%, group A vs. B, respectively p = .9).

CONCLUSION

Presence of PPM does not seem to affect early in-hospital outcomes or late survival when using EP in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Speckle tracking echocardiography in severe patient-prosthesis mismatch

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) when successfully performed boasts low mortality rates in selected patients, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) can be found in the majority of these individuals. Limited research is available supporting the benefit of two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) in patients with severe PPM. This study sought to assess myocardial strain using 2D-STE to determine the relationship between subclinical left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and aortic PPM in patients undergoing AVR with preserved LV ejection fraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined all consecutive patients with isolated AVR who presented to our center from 2005 to 2018. The data of 1086 patients were analyzed. Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area of 0.65 cm²/m² or less. As a result of the detailed assessment, 54 patients meeting the eligibility criteria were included in the study. Baseline data were collected and compared between the two groups of patients with severe PPM (n = 27) and those with normofunctional aortic prosthesis valve as a control group (n = 27). All patients underwent baseline echocardiography. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) were evaluated by 2D-STE.

RESULTS

When compared with controls, patients with severe PPM had significantly decreased GLS (18.6 ± 2.9 vs. 21.4 ± 2.1; p < 0.01) and GCS (17.2 ± 3.6 vs. 21.7 ± 2.1; p < 0.01) values.

CONCLUSION

In addition to standard clinical and echocardiographic parameters, GLS and GCS suggest subclinical dysfunction and have incremental value in patients with severe PPM.

A Retrospective Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes between Two Differently Designed Aortic Bioprostheses for Small Aortic Annuli

The Trifecta valve has externally mounted leaflets; it differs from classic internally mounted valves (e.g., Carpentier-Edwards [C-E]). We evaluated post-implantation hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of these bioprostheses in small aortic annuli. From January 2015 to April 2019, 490 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) were reviewed retrospectively. Altogether, 183 patients received 19 or 21 mm diameter C-E (n = 121) or Trifecta (n = 62) prostheses. To minimize confounding variables, we performed propensity-score matching analysis. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG) was significantly lower in the Trifecta than in the C-E group at discharge (12.9 ± 4.8 vs. 15.0 ± 5.3 mmHg, p = 0.044). TVPG change over time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.357). Left ventricular mass index decreased postoperatively (reduction: C-E, 28.1%; Trifecta, 30.1%, p = 0.879). No late mortality, severe patient–prosthesis mismatch, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage, structural valve degeneration, or valve thromboses were observed. Freedom from valve-related events at 3 years were similar for C-E (97.9% ± 2.1%) and Trifecta (97.7% ± 2.2%) patients (log-rank p = 0.993). Bioprosthesis design for small annuli significantly affected TVPG immediately after AVR. However, hemodynamics over time and clinical outcomes did not differ between the two designs.

Elevated Prosthetic Valve Gradients: What to Consider When Determining an Etiology

DOPPLER echocardiography is a useful noninvasive tool for the assessment of cardiac hemodynamics. However, it is subject to limitations that can have important clinical implications, especially in the setting of valve prosthesis. Elevation in mean transvalvular gradient is a finding that has a variety of etiologies. One such etiology is the pressure-recovery (PR) phenomenon, a consequence of stream convergence and energy conversion across a narrowing, which is an artifact of Doppler echocardiographic calculations of valvular flow. The elevated gradient measured with Doppler echocardiography as a result of PR is not present on cardiac catheterization and does not represent true problematic valve hemodynamics. PR should be suspected with an elevated gradient on Doppler echocardiography with normal leaflet motion, especially in the setting of a small proximal aorta. Understanding and awareness of PR are important because PR can lead to overestimation of disease severity in the clinical setting.

Early Hemodynamics after Aortic Valve Replacement

Background and objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate changes in the hemodynamics associated with different types of aortic prostheses and to evaluate patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) at rest and after exercise. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 150 patients who presented with indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with/without concomitant surgery from March 2019 to January 2020. The study population included 90 (60%) men and 60 (40%) women (mean age, 67.33 ± 10.22 years; range, 37-88 years). Echocardiography data such as peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients (Gmax, Gmean), velocity (V), effective orifice area (EOA), and indexed EOA (iEOA) were derived at rest and after exercise at baseline and before discharge. The study patients performed the six-minute walk test (6MWT) on the 5th-7th postoperative day. Results: Stented tissue valves showed excellent performance at rest and after exercise in comparison with mechanical valves, which showed favorable hemodynamics at rest only. At the time of discharge, moderate PPM was observed in 7/74 patients (9.5%) at rest and 5/98 (3.3%) patients after exercise. None of the patients showed severe PPM. EOA and iEOA were not significantly different between the groups. However, the stented group showed more pronounced changes in EOA and iEOA after exercise, whereas the changes in the mechanical valve group did not reach significance. Conclusions: In the early postoperative period, mechanical valves and stented valves showed favorable resting hemodynamics. The PPM rate measured after exercise was lower than that at rest.

Expansion of TAVR into Low-Risk Patients and Who to Consider for SAVR

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) over the last decade. The results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-surgical-risk patients and led to the approval of TAVR for use across the risk spectrum. Heart teams around the world will now be faced with evaluating a deluge of younger, healthier patients with severe AS. Prior to the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk studies, this heterogenous patient population would have undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unlikely that TAVR will completely supplant SAVR for the treatment of severe AS in patients with a low surgical risk, as SAVR has excellent short- and long-term outcomes and years of durability data. In this review, we outline the critical role that SAVR will continue to play in the treatment of severe AS in the post-PARTNER 3/Evolut Low Risk era.

Long-Term Outcomes and Echocardiographic Data After Aortic Valve Replacement With a 17-mm Mechanical Valve

BACKGROUND

We investigated the long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a 17-mm mechanical valve.Methods and Results:Between January 2005 and December 2011, 80 patients with aortic stenosis underwent AVR with the 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthetic valve. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at discharge, and at follow-up, which was performed at least 2 years postoperatively (median interval, 7.3 years). Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was defined as an indexed effective orifice area <0.85 cm²/m²at discharge and occurred in 25 patients (31%). The median follow-up period was 8.7 years (100% complete). Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.5% (2 patients) with 27 late deaths (34%). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 78.7% and 63.0%, respectively. Peripheral arterial disease and concomitant mitral valve repair were independent predictors of late mortality. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events (MAVRE) rates were 91.6% and 83.5%, respectively. PPM at discharge did not affect long-term survival, freedom from MAVRE, or freedom from heart failure. Echocardiographic data at follow-up revealed a significant reduction in the mean left ventricular mass index (LVMI). LVMI reduction observed at follow-up was similar between patients with and without PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR with the 17-mm mechanical prosthesis had acceptable long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Significant reduction in LVMI was observed regardless of PPM.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Changes in Cardiac Sympathetic Nervous Function

The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on changes in cardiac sympathetic nervous (CSN) function remains unclear. Using 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy, we investigated the impact of PPM after TAVR on CSN activity.We enrolled 44 of 117 patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR for analysis in the present study. We conducted 123I-MIBG scintigraphy at baseline and at about 9 months after TAVR. Differences between baseline and post-TAVR 123I-MIBG parameters were compared between cases with and without PPM.There were 17 and 27 patients with and without PPM, respectively. Those without PPM exhibited significantly decreased left ventricular mass index (122 ± 36 g/m² versus 108 ± 30 g/m², P < 0.001) following TAVR, whereas those with PPM did not (117 ± 21 g/m² versus 110 ± 17 g/m², P = 0.09). Significant improvements in delayed heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) ratio (2.8 ± 0.4 versus 3.0 ± 0.4, P = 0.004) and washout rate (WR) (33% ± 10% versus 24% ± 12%, P < 0.001) were observed after TAVR in patients without PPM but not in those with PPM. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed PPM to be a negative predictor of improvements in delayed H/M ratio and WR.Delayed H/M ratio and WR improve significantly after TAVR in the absence of PPM, whereas these improvements are not observed in patients with PPM. Hence, the presence of PPM is a negative predictor of improvements in delayed H/M ratio and WR in patients undergoing TAVR.

Why the categorization of indexed effective orifice area is not justified for the classification of prosthesis-patient mismatch

OBJECTIVES

Although the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on survival has been widely studied, there has been little debate about whether the current definition of PPM truly reflects hemodynamic obstruction. This study aimed to validate the categorization of indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) for the classification of PPM.

METHODS

In total, 2171 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a surgical stented bioprosthesis in 5 trials (CoreValve US High-Risk, SURTAVI [Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Trial], Evolut Low Risk, PERIGON [PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt] Pivotal Trial for the Avalus valve, and PERIGON Japan) were used for this analysis. The echocardiographic images at the 1-year follow-up visit were evaluated to explore the association between EOAi and mean aortic gradient and its interaction with other patient characteristics, including obesity. In addition, different criteria of PPM were compared with reflect elevated mean aortic gradients (≥20 mm Hg).

RESULTS

A relatively smaller exponential decay in mean aortic gradient was found for increasing EOAi, as the slope on the log scale was -0.83 versus -2.5 in the publication from which the current cut-offs for PPM originate. The accuracy of the American Society of Echocardiography, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2, and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging definitions of PPM to reflect elevated mean aortic gradients was 49%, 57%, and 57%, respectively. The relation between EOAi and mean aortic gradient was not significantly different between obese and non-obese patients (P = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EOAi thresholds to classify patients with PPM is undermined by a less-pronounced exponential relationship between EOAi and mean aortic gradient than previously demonstrated. Moreover, recent adjustment for obesity in the definition of PPM is not supported by these data.

Accuracy of predicted effective orifice area in determining incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is associated with poor outcomes after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) charts in predicting PPM after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of 346 TAVR patients from January 2017 to November 2018 was performed. EOAi was predicted for patients based on published predictive tables using valve type, annulus diameter, and body surface area. Actual EOAi was calculated based on intraoperative transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) measurements. PPM was defined by EOAi ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² . The accuracy of predicted PPM was assessed. Differences in clinical outcomes, including mean gradient, length of stay, mortality, complications, and change in Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire score as an indicator of quality of life, were evaluated based on actual PPM.

RESULTS

Of the 346 patients analyzed, 44 (12.7%) of patients had PPM on intraoperative TEE. Of the 182 patients who received Sapien 3 valves, 42 (23.1%) were predicted to have PPM while 25 (13.7%) had actual PPM. Of the 164 patients who received Evolut valves, 3 (1.8%) were predicted to have PPM while 19 (11.6%) had actual PPM. EOAi charts had poor sensitivity (40.0% for Sapien 3; 5.25% for Evolut) and positive predictive value (23.8% for Sapien 3; 33.3% for Evolut) for both valve types.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative prediction of PPM in TAVR patients using tables of expected EOA demonstrates significant variation from actual PPM. The utility of EOAi charts to predict PPM in patients undergoing TAVR may be limited.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in degenerated aortic bioprostheses: are patients with small surgical bioprostheses at higher risk for unfavourable mid-term outcomes?

Background

To examine outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) according to the inner diameter (ID) of the degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis.

Methods

We analyzed survival, stroke, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, paravalvular (PV) leakage, acute kidney injury and vascular complications in fifty-nine patients during a ten-year period. Patients were stratified according to the ID of the indwelling degenerated biological aortic valve (true ID ≤ and >20 mm). Differences in post-procedural transvalvular gradients and hospital re-admissions were analyzed.

Results

The median age of the small diameter group and large diameter group was eighty-one and eighty years, respectively. Median logistic EuroSCORE I was 23.9% and 26.2% and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score was 5.7% and 7.8% for the small and large groups, respectively. Survival, stroke, PPM implantation, PV leakage, acute kidney injury and vascular complications did not reach any statistically significant difference between both groups. Postprocedural transvalvular gradients differed significantly according to the true ID of the degenerated bioprosthetic valve and consequently of the respective TAVI valve. There was a significant difference with regard to hospital readmissions according to the true ID.

Conclusions

TAVI ViV implantation for aortic bioprostheses with small true IDs of ≤20 mm is associated with comparable mid-term mortality and periprocedural stroke rate compared to implantation into larger bioprostheses. However, the periprocedural and mid-term transvalvular gradients, as well as hospital re-admission rates are significantly higher in the small diameter group.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in mitral annuloplasty for degenerative mitral regurgitation: an ignored issue

OBJECTIVES

Elevated postoperative transmitral gradient (TMG), partially induced by a small annuloplasty ring, is associated with late atrial fibrillation (AF) after mitral valve repair. Here, we aimed to provide the optimal cut-off of prosthetic ring size to reduce patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after mitral annuloplasty.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2017, 262 patients who underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative pathologies were retrospectively studied. The relationships of body surface area (BSA)-indexed prosthetic orifice area (POAi)-postoperative TMG and POAi-late AF were tested using regression curves and receiver operating characteristic curves, respectively. The optimal cut-off of POAi predictive of late AF was used to define PPM. Baseline and follow-up data of patients with and without PPM were compared in propensity score-matched cohorts.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 0. Late AF was observed in 9.2% (24/262) patients during a median follow-up of 3.8 years. An exponential model was best fitted based on the POAi-postoperative TMG relationship (P < 0.001). Using late AF as the dependent variable, the optimal cut-off for PPM was POAi ≤2.28 cm2/m2 (c-statistic 0.71; sensitivity 0.61; specificity 0.80; P < 0.001). PPM was identified in 113 (43.1%) patients. After propensity score matching, the estimated 5-year rate of late AF was significantly higher in PPM patients than in non-PPM patients (24% vs 5%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative TMG increases significantly with a small POAi for full ring annuloplasty. A patient's BSA should be considered in addition to valvular dimensions during the selection of a proper ring size to reduce PPM-related AF.

Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: Expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS-STS-AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and hemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis-patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Essential Information on Surgical Heart Valve Characteristics for Optimal Valve Prosthesis Selection: Expert Consensus Document From the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS-STS-AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and hemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis-patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)–The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)–American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS–STS–AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and haemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis–patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Hemodynamic Performance of Pericardial Bioprostheses in the Aortic Position

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial valves (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magana and Magna Ease).

Methods

In total, 216 patients (mean age, 70.0±10.5 years) who underwent AVR using stented bovine pericardial valves and had follow-up echocardiography between 3 months and 2 years (mean, 12.0±6.6 months) after surgery were enrolled. The implanted valve sizes were 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm in 32, 56, 99, and 29 patients, respectively.

Results

On follow-up echocardiography, the mean transvalvular pressure gradients for the 19-mm, 21-mm, 23-mm, and 25-mm valves were 13.3±4.4, 12.6±4.2, 10.5±3.9, and 10.2± 3.7 mm Hg, respectively. The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.25±0.26, 1.54±0.31, 1.81±0.41, and 1.87±0.33 cm², respectively. These values were smaller than those suggested by the manufacturer for the corresponding sizes. No patients had PPM, when based on the reference EOA. However, moderate (EOA index ≤0.85 cm²/m²) and severe (EOA index ≤0.65 cm²/m²) PPM was present in 56 patients (11.8%) and 9 patients (1.9%), respectively, when using the measured values.

Conclusion

Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease bovine pericardial valves showed satisfactory hemodynamic performance with low rates of PPM, although the reference EOA could overestimate the true EOA for individual patients.

Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography in cardiovascular surgery. Consensus document from the Spanish Society of Anesthesia and Critical Care (SEDAR) and the Spanish Society of Endovascular and Cardiovascular Surgery (SECCE)

Transesophageal echocardiography is a semi-invasive technique that allows an evaluation of cardiac morphology and function in real time and it is a quality standard in cardiovascular surgery. It has become a fundamental tool for both monitoring and diagnosis in the intraoperative period that allows decide the correct surgical planning and pharmacological management. The goal of this document is to answer the questions of when and how the perioperative TEE should be performed in cardiovascular surgery, what are their applications in the intraoperative, who should perform it and how the information should be transmitted. The authors made a systematic review of international guidelines, review articles and clinical trials to answer by consensus to these questions.

Long-term clinical outcomes of the Toronto stentless porcine valve: 15-year results from dual centers

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term durability of the Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV) in the aortic position (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN).

METHODS

We assessed the long-term clinical outcomes of 515 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Toronto SPV from 1987 to 2001 at two centers, excluding early (<30 days) death. Median follow-up was 11.5 years (maximum 19.0 years).

RESULTS

Average age was 64.2 ± 10.8 years, and females were 34% (173/515). The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch was low, 10.9%. Overall survival was 90.7 ± 1.3%, 75.4 ± 2.0%, and 56.8 ± 3.2% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively after surgery. Over the follow-up duration, 116 patients (23%) underwent repeated AVR: 90 for structural valve deterioration (SVD), 12 for endocarditis, 10 nonstructural valve dysfunction (10 aortic regurgitation due to aorta dilatation), and four for other reasons. The cumulative incidence of repeated AVR with death as a competing risk was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.7), 11.1% (95% CI, 8.4-14.2), and 34.4% (95% CI, 28.8-40.2) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Reoperative mortality was 5.2% (6/116). In SVD, the regurgitation type was dominant (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Toronto SPV is associated with excellent survival and durability during the first decade of follow-up. However, regurgitation type of SVD increases from 10 years after operation with acceptable reoperative mortality. These findings may assist with prosthesis selection and reintervention strategy for failing stentless bioprosthesis.

Annulus root enlargement during redo aortic valve replacement: Perioperative results and hemodynamic impact

OBJECTIVES

Redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) might present an increased risk for predicted patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) procedures can decrease PPM and improve hemodynamic parameters. It is crucial to evaluate the safety of ARE in the context of redo AVR to allow better patient selection.

METHODS

This is a matched case-control study of 125 patients who underwent a redo AVR between 1991 and 2016, 21 patients had a concomitant ARE procedure. Patients were matched for age, gender, presence of coronary artery disease, renal clearance, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were postoperative impact of the ARE procedures on echocardiographic measurements and survival.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, indexed aortic valve area (0.49 vs 0.66 cm² /m² ; P = .02) and left ventricle outflow tract diameters (20.1 vs 22.2 mm; P < .01) were significantly smaller in the ARE group. ARE procedures increased the aortic valve area by an average of 0.4 cm² (pre = 0.9, post = 1.3; P < .01), with a reduction of maximum and mean transvalvular gradients of 26.6 mm Hg (pre = 56.8, post = 30.2; P < .01) and 17.1 mm Hg (pre = 31.9, post = 14.8; P < .01), respectively. Postoperatively, the occurrence of MACE was similar (ARE = 19%, no ARE = 14%; P = .68). Survival rates were similar (P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing redo AVR, ARE is not associated with higher perioperative mortality and morbidity when compared with patients undergoing AVR without ARE. The fear of perioperative complications potentially associated with ARE should not be a prohibiting factor in symptomatic redo patients with small aortic annulus and predicted PPM.

Long-term follow-up of the Shelhigh™ superstentless bioprosthesis aortic valve and valved conduit in a monocentric experience

BACKGROUND

The Shelhigh™ SuperStentless (Shelhigh, INC., Union, NJ, USA) is a stentless aortic valve bioprosthesis and aortic root valved conduit. In 2007, this device was recalled by FDA due to malfunction, and subsequently reintegrated by BioIntegral Surgical™ Few data are available over late durability of this device. We performed a long-term follow-up of Shelhigh™ devices implanted at our center.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2007, 44 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a Shelhigh™ device (40 aortic valve bioprosthesis and 4 valved conduit). We performed a clinical and echocardiographic follow-up (9.2 years±4.3). Standardized definitions of valve-related events were adopted.

RESULTS

At discharge, maximum and mean aortic gradients averaged 36.1±11.3 and 21.0±6.8 mmHg, respectively. The 30-days mortality was 2.3%. Over the follow-up period, 29 patients died (65.9%); 2 deaths were valve related. Overall survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 97.7%, 85.8% and 54% respectively. At last echocardiography, average transvalvular gradients had remained globally stable in the population (33.6±12 and 20.4±10.5 mmHg). Eight (19%) structural valve deterioration (SVD) events were reported. Two (5%) non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) events occurred (periprosthetic leak). Two (5%) infectious endocarditis events and two (5%) valve thromboses were also deplored. Three (7%) patients required re-operation (2 due to SVD and 1 due to endocarditis).

CONCLUSIONS

The immediate hemodynamic performance of the Shelhigh™ aortic bioprostheses was unexpectedly suboptimal. Despite this, hemodynamic performance remained stable over time. Patients survival at follow-up was satisfactory, however, continued surveillance is necessary.

Computed Tomography Annular Dimensions: A Novel Method to Compare Prosthetic Valve Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The Cardiac Surgical Societies Valve Labeling Task Force consensus document acknowledged inconsistent sizing and labeling of prosthetic heart valves. This study compared the labeled size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of different surgical and transcatheter valve types implanted into the same size annulus, measured by preprocedural computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively sorted into 3 CT annular diameter size groups: small (less than 23 mm), medium (23 to less than 26 mm), and large (26 mm or greater). Surgical valves were sorted into 4 categories based on tissue and design: (stentless porcine, standard stented bovine, wraparound stented bovine, and stented porcine). Comparisons were made within the surgical types and with a transcatheter valve. Echocardiograms were independently assessed and CTs were centrally measured.

RESULTS

We analyzed 726 surgical and 923 transcatheter valve paired data sets. Among the various valve types implanted into the same size CT annulus, there were significant differences regarding size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics within all 3 size groups. Root enlargement procedures occurred in 1.2% with no differences across valve types or size groups. Transcatheter valve hemodynamics were similar to stentless valves and were significantly better than all stented valves. There was no difference in hemodynamics between the 2 bovine stented valve types, and stented porcine valves were inferior to all valve types.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents that prosthetic heart valve sizing and labeling inconsistencies exist. Use of preoperative CT annular dimensions is the most accurate method to compare size, internal diameter, and hemodynamics of bioprosthetic aortic valves because it compares values among various valve types implanted into the same size annulus.

Incidence and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after reoperative aortic valve replacement: a retrospective single-center study

Background

Reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with increased mortality compared with initial surgery, and a smaller valve might be implanted during repeat AVR (re-AVR; AVR after prior AVR). We describe the clinical outcomes and incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatches (PPM) after reoperative AVR.

Methods

Among 113 patients who underwent reoperative AVR between 2007 and 2018, 44 underwent re-AVR and 69 underwent a first replacement of a diseased natural valve after any cardiac surgery except AVR (primary AVR). We then compared early and late outcomes, the impact of re-AVR on the effective orifice areas (EOA), and the incidence and influence of PPM on reoperative AVR.

Results

Hospital mortality was 2.7%, and the overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 95, 91 and 86%, respectively. The reference EOA of the newly implanted valve was smaller than that of the previous valve (1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 cm², p < 0.01). The mean pressure gradient was greater (15.2 ± 6.4 vs. 12.7 ± 6.2 mmHg, p = 0.04) and indexed EOA was smaller (0.92 ± 0.26 vs. 1.06 ± 0.36 cm²/m², p = 0.04) during re-AVR than primary AVR, whereas the incidence of PPM was similar (38.7% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.87) between the groups.

Conclusions

The clinical outcomes of reoperative AVR were acceptable. Although the reference EOA of new implanted valves was smaller than that of previous valves, re-AVR did not increase the incidence of PPM. These findings might serve as a guide for future decisions regarding the surgical approach to treating degenerated prosthetic valves.