Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement

Self-expandable transcatheter valve is a potentially useful option for a failing small surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve

OBJECTIVE

Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve bio-prosthesis has become an alternative for patients at high risk for redo surgical aortic valve replacement. However, the correlation between the size of the failing surgical aortic valve and the occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after trans-catheter implantation is still controversial. The aim of this study is to analyze and report the results in Japanese patients.

METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent trans-catheter aortic valve implantation inside a failing surgical aortic valve at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed with results from echocardiography and computed tomography.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 84.5 ± 4.8 years. The mean body surface area was 1.42 ± 0.13 m2. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the size of the failing bio-prosthesis: small (≦19 mm) and large (> 19 mm). There were no significant differences in mean pressure gradient (12.2 ± 4.0 mmHg vs. 11.1 ± 1.2 mmHg; p = 0.54) and effective orifice area index (1.00 ± 0.26 cm2/m2 vs. 0.99 ± 0.25 cm2/m2; p = 0.92) between the groups at 6 months after trans-catheter implantation. The incidence of moderate (38.5% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.59) and severe (0% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.33) prosthesis-patient mismatch was equivalent. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test p-value = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Trans-catheter implantation inside a failing small aortic valve did not increase the frequency of prosthesis-patient mismatch in this Japanese cohort.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.

Incidence, predictors, and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is common, but the incidence, predictors and outcome of PPM are still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 18 articles incorporating 72,016 patients were identified form PubMed and Embase online database.

RESULTS

The pooled incidences of overall, and severe PPM following TAVR were 32.0% and 10.0% separately. Comparing to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), TAVR had lower incidence of overall (OR, 0.31, 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and severe PPM (OR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.28-0.52). PPM was associated with a larger body surface area (BSA), larger body mass index (BMI) and previous myocardial infarction in comparison with those patients without PPM. Although PPM was not rare after TAVR, no significant differences were observed both in short- and mid-term all-cause mortality (30 day: OR: 1.51, 95% CI, 0.79-2.87, 1 year: OR: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.96-1.08, and 2 years: OR: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.79-1.24) between patients with PPM and those without PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that the incidence of PPM was lower than that of SAVR, PPM was not seen to have an impact on short- and mid-term survival.

Echocardiography in the Era of Obesity

Patients with obesity are at increased risk for coronary artery disease and heart failure and often present with symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, edema, or chest pain. Echocardiography is frequently used to help distinguish whether these symptoms are due to cardiac disease. Unfortunately, obesity has a significant impact on image quality because of signal attenuation. Ultrasound-enhancing agents may improve the detection of structural remodeling and subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in patients with obesity. Assessment of chamber sizes and cardiac remodeling in severely obese subjects must be interpreted with caution, however, as the current recommendations for indexing cardiac chamber sizes to body size may lead to false conclusions about chamber volumes or mass, particularly in settings in which weight is changing. As a result of increases in stroke volume and cardiac output, obesity may exacerbate hemodynamic compromise in obstructive structural or valvular disease. With regard to assessment of ischemic heart disease, stress echocardiography can effectively risk-stratify patients with obesity and may have advantages over other noninvasive modalities. In general, transesophageal echocardiography is safe in patients with obesity, although some precautions should be observed. Stress echocardiography using the transesophageal approach is an alternative for preoperative or ischemia evaluation in patients with suboptimal transthoracic views.

The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch on survival after aortic and mitral valve replacement: a 10 year, single institution experience

Background

The evidence on the impact of patient-prosthesis Mismatch (PPM) on survival thus far has been conflicting. The aim of this study was to 1) study the effect of PPM on survival after isolated aortic and mitral valve replacement and 2) Assess the interaction between left ventricular function and PPM on survival.

Methods

The study cohort was patients who underwent isolated Aortic valve replacement (AVR) and Mitral valve replacement (MVR) over a 10-year period from 2008 to 2018. PPM was defined using the projected indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). The cohort was divided into different groups based on the degree of PPM. The severity of PPM was classified using threshold values of EOAi used in the literature. The Kaplan- Meier method was used to compare survival by degree of PPM. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals. An interactive term for ejection fraction (EF) was added to test whether EF modifies the effect of the PPM grade on survival. In addition, sub-group analysis based on left ventricular function was performed.

Results

In the AVR cohort, there were a total of 1953 patients. The distribution of patients in the different PPM categories was as follows: no PPM 59.7%; moderate PPM 36.8%; severe PPM 3.5%. There was no significant difference in survival between the different groups. At 10 years, the adjusted HR between patients with severe PPM versus no PPM was 1.1(CI 0.5–2.4, p >  0.05) and the HR between those with moderate PPM versus no PPM was 0.97 (CI 0.74–1.23, p >  0.05). In the MVR cohort, there were a total of 298 patients. The distribution of PPM is as follows: no PPM 59.4%; and with PPM 40.6%. Again, there was no significant difference in survival between the groups. At 5 years, the adjusted HR between patients with PPM versus no PPM was 1.45 (CI 0.67–3.14, p >  0.05). In both groups, there was no significant interaction between left ventricular function (LVF) and degree of PPM on survival.

Conclusions

In our study cohort, the degree of PPM was not an independent predictor of survival after AVR or MVR. There was also no significant interaction between LV function and degree of PPM on survival.

Nineteen Years of Single Institute Experiences with Sorin Bicarbon Prosthesis

Purpose: We want to share our experience of Sorin Bicarbon prosthesis (SBP) after 19 years follow-up.

Methods: Retrospective study of 1377 patients who had replaced with SBP from May 1998 to December 2008 at Ho Chi Minh Heart Institute, Viet Nam.

Results: Male patients was 42%, mean age was 40.2 ± 11.8 years. Atrial fibrillation was 43.5%. The main cause of valvular disease was rheumatic fever (89.8%). Isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR): 54% (744), isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR): 18% (247), double valve replacement (DVR): 26% (359), and 27 AVR plus mitral repair. 30-day mortality for all was 1.5%. Mean time of follow-up was 153 ± 53.1 months with total follow-up time was 17563 patients-years. 2.5% lost of follow-up. Late death was 77 cases. Redo for all causes was 59 cases. 19 years survival was 88.8 ± 1.8%. 19 years freedom of redo was 76.4 ± 4.7%. Linearized rate of all valve thrombosis, embolism, severe bleeding, endocarditis, and pannus were 0.31%, 0.28%, 0.267%, 0.068%, and 0.165% patient-years, respectively.

Conclusions: SBP had shown very good results in long term and still have a reliable mechanical valve.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) occurs when an implanted prosthetic valve is too small for the patient; severe PPM is defined as an indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) <0.65 cm2/m2 following aortic valve replacement (AVR). This review examines articles from the past 10 years addressing the prevalence, outcomes and options for prevention and treatment of PPM after AVR. Prevalence of PPM ranges from 8% to almost 80% in individual studies. PPM is thought to have an impact on mortality, mainly in patients with severe PPM, although severe PPM accounts for only 10–15% of cases. Outcomes of patients with moderate PPM are not significantly different to those without PPM. PPM is associated with higher rates of perioperative stroke and renal failure and lack of left ventricular mass regression. Predictors include female sex, older age, hypertension, diabetes, renal failure and higher surgical risk score. PPM may be a marker of comorbidity rather than a risk factor for adverse outcomes. PPM should be suspected in patients with persistent cardiac symptoms after AVR when there is high prosthetic valve velocity or gradient and a small calculated effective orifice area. After exclusion of other causes of increased transvalvular gradient, re-intervention may be considered if symptoms persist and are unresponsive to medical therapy. However, this decision needs to consider the available options to relieve PPM and whether expected benefits justify the risk of intervention. The only effective intervention is redo surgery with implantation of a larger valve and/or annular enlargement. Therefore, focus needs to be on prevention.

Patient prosthesis mismatch and its impact on left ventricular regression following aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients

Introduction

Patient prosthesis mismatch is known to alter post-operative remodeling of left ventricle adversely in aortic stenosis patients. An indexed orifice area of 0.85 is considered as conventional cutoff for patient prosthesis mismatch based on hemodynamic principles. Many patients have smaller annulus and annulus enlargement techniques may be required to avoid this benchmark which complicates the surgery.

Aims and objectives

To determine incidence of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in our population, to assess left ventricle (LV) regression and impact of indexed effective orifice area on LV regression, and to determine a minimum acceptable cut off indexed orifice area that will result in LV regression.

Materials and methods

A single-center retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement surgery for severe aortic stenosis between July 2015 and December 2015 was conducted. Patients who underwent concomitant revascularization or other valve surgery were excluded. Data regarding conventional risk factors for PPM, valve type, and indexed orifice area as well as pre-operative and late post-operative LV mass were collected.

Observations

Thirty-seven of the 91 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. All patients had significant regression in LV mass. The incidence of PPM was 68%. Regression of indexed left ventricular mass showed a positive correlation of with indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. The correlation coefficient is + 0.48 (95% CI 0.18-0.698). Left ventricular mass regression was significantly higher in patients with indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (68.89 ± 29 vs 122.55 ± 58.84, p = 0.028). Relative left ventricular regression also was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (39.53 ± 13.13 vs 49.73 ± 15.56, p = 0.022). There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and the reduction in mean gradient achieved by valve replacement. The correlation coefficient was + 0.35 (95% CI 0.03-0.61).

Conclusions

The incidence of PPM was found to be comparable to literature. There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. Left ventricular regression was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective area more than 0.75. This can be considered as criteria for significant PPM in study population.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement: a retrospective analysis in East China

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) may affect the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aimed to determine the incidence of PPM, its effect on short-term mortality, and the factors contributing to PPM in China.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined all consecutive patients with isolated or concomitant AVR at our hospital between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. PPM was defined as an effective orifice area index (EOAi) of ≤ 0.85 cm²/m². The baseline, echocardiographic, operative, and outcome data of all patients were collected from the national database.

RESULTS

A total of 869 patients were included in the study. PPM was detected in 15.9% (138/869) of the patients. Four patients (0.5%) met the criteria for severe PPM. Patients with PPM were older and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease, aortic stenosis (AS), and preoperative left ventricular dysfunction but a lower incidence of smoking history and aortic regurgitation. Logistic regression analysis showed that female gender (P < 0.001), AS (P = 0.014), higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001), and bioprosthesis (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of PPM. We also found that PPM (P = 0.005) was associated with 30-day all-cause mortality, along with smoking history (P = 0.001) and low preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PPM is associated with high short-term mortality after AVR in China. Female gender, aortic stenosis, bioprosthesis, and high BMI are risk factors for the incidence of PPM.

Aortic valve replacement and prosthesis-patient mismatch in the era of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

Objective

The treatment strategy for aortic stenosis (AS) has been changing due to newly developed valvular prostheses and trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To determine the role of new modalities for AS with a small aortic root, papers using the concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) were reviewed.

Methods

First, to determine the cut-off value of the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) for defining PPM, the studies of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a follow-up longer than 5 years and a patient number larger than 500 were reviewed. Second, the papers comparing TAVI and SAVR were reviewed. Furthermore, the prevalence of PPM was reviewed, with the addition of papers on aortic root enlargement, sutureless AVR, and aortic valve reconstruction with autologous pericardium.

Results and conclusion

The results of the long-term survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have indicated that an IEOA less than 0.65 cm²/m² should be avoided in all cases, whereas the indications for patients with an IEOA between 065 and 0.85 cm²/m² should be determined by considering multiple factors. A large body size and younger age have a significantly negative influence on the long-term survival. In Asian population, the prevalence of PPM was low, despite the fact that the size of the aortic annulus was small. The IEOA after TAVI was larger than after surgical AVR in population-matched studies. To evaluate the role of TAVI and other modalities for a small aortic root, studies with a longer follow-up and larger volume are thus warranted.

Incidence and Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery

AIM:

The mains topics of this work are the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and the influence in the early results of isolated aortic valve surgery.

METHODS:

In 193 patients isolated aortic valve surgery was performed. The study population was divided in three subgroups: 20 patients with severe, 131 patients with moderate and 42 patients without patient-prosthesis mismatch. The indexed effective orifice area was used to define the subgroups. Operative mortality and perioperative complications were considered the indicators of the early results of aortic valve surgery.

RESULTS:

The incidence of severe and moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch was respectively 10.3% and 67.8%. Hospital mortality and perioperative complications were: mortality 5% vs. 3.1% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.855), low cardiac output 5% vs. 6.9% vs. 4.8% (p = 0.861); pulmonary complications 5% vs. 3.1 vs. 0.0% (p = 0.430); exploration for bleeding 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.319); atrial fibrillation 30% vs. 19.8% vs. 11.9% (p = 0.225); wound infection 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.00% (p = 0.165), respectively for the group with severe, moderate and without patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch is a common occurrence in aortic valve surgery. This phenomenon does not affect the early results of aortic valve surgery.

Fifteen-year experience with the Bicarbon heart valve prosthesis in a single center

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the clinical performance of the Bicarbon valve (Sorin Biomedica Cardio, Saluggia, Italy) implanted at our center in Japan.

Methods

Between January 1997 and December 2011, 415 patients in our institution were implanted with the Bicarbon valve. Nine of these recipients were excluded from the study because they had already undergone valve implantation and received a Bicarbon valve in a different position. The remaining patients were analyzed for evaluation of the postoperative clinical outcomes. Of the 406 patients (mean age 60.2 ± 11.7 years), 179 underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR), 149 mitral valve replacement (MVR), and 78 both aortic and mitral valve replacement (DVR).

Results

There were 10 early deaths (2.5 %: 4 in the AVR group and 6 in the MVR group). Three hundred eighty-nine patients were followed up (95.8 % completeness of follow-up) with a mean follow-up of 6.6 ± 4.2 years overall (AVR 6.8 ± 4.2, MVR, 6.7 ± 4.4, and DVR 5.7 ± 3.4 years) and a cumulative follow-up of 2661 patient-years (1214, 1001, and 446 patient-years for AVR, MVR, and DVR, respectively). Ninety-nine patients died (3.7 % per patient-year: 22 valve-related and 77 valve-unrelated deaths). Survival at 10 years was 74.1 ± 4.0 % in the AVR group, 73.7 ± 4.2 % in the MVR group, and 61.0 ± 7.9 % in the DVR group. The linearized incidence of thromboembolic complications, bleeding complications, prosthetic valve endocarditis, paravalvular leaks, and sudden death in all patients was 0.5 %, 0.5 %, 0.2 %, 0.2 %, and 0.4 % per patient-year, respectively. The incidence of valve-related complications and reoperation was 1.6 % and 0.4 %, respectively. No other valve-related complications were observed.

Conclusions

The Bicarbon prosthetic heart valve has shown excellent clinical results and is associated with a low incidence of valve-related complications.