Hemodynamic evaluation by Doppler echocardiography of small (less than or equal to 21 mm) prostheses and bioprostheses in the aortic valve position

Effective valve opening area in the detection of dysfunctional aortic valve prostheses: a differentiated statistical analysis of this parameter including the introduction of minimal expected normal values as borderline to dysfunctional stenotic prostheses

BACKGROUND

Dysfunction of heart valve prostheses (VP) is a life-threatening complication and the diagnosis remains difficult. The motivation for this study was to improve the detection of dysfunctional VP by optimizing application of the prosthetic effective orifice area (VA). For this reason the minimal expected normal VA (VA(expected)) was introduced.

METHODS

We investigated echocardiographically 1,369 normally functioning aortic valve prostheses (AVP). Mean VA, transprosthetic peak (PPG) and mean pressure gradients (MPG) were evaluated to gain reference values depending on prosthetic size and construction principle. Mean VA(expected) was calculated by applying a simple formula that was developed empirically using statistical analyses. The results were compared with those of 65 dysfunctional AVPs.

RESULTS

VA(expected) can be applied as a threshold between normal and dysfunctional stenotic AVP and showed a correct estimation in 87% of all normally functioning and 100% of dysfunctional stenotic VPs. The sensitivity for all prosthetic sizes is 1.0, independently of the constructional principle of the VP. Specificity ranged between 0.8 and 1.0, dependent on VP size. The formula representing VA(expected) is simple and can be executed easily.

CONCLUSION

As nearly independent of stroke volume and in consideration of VA(expected), VA seems to have become one of the preferable parameters for detecting pathological stenotic AVPs echocardiographically. The additional application of PPG/MPG and other parameters permits prostheses with relevant isolated regurgitation and patient-prosthesis-mismatch to be distinguished.

Diagnostic evaluation of left-sided prosthetic heart valve dysfunction

Prosthetic heart valve (PHV) dysfunction is a rare, but potentially life-threatening, complication. In clinical practice, PHV dysfunction poses a diagnostic dilemma. Echocardiography and fluoroscopy are the imaging techniques of choice and are routinely used in daily practice. However, these techniques sometimes fail to determine the specific cause of PHV dysfunction, which is crucial to the selection of the appropriate treatment strategy. Multidetector-row CT (MDCT) can be of additional value in diagnosing the specific cause of PHV dysfunction and provides valuable complimentary information for surgical planning in case of reoperation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has limited value in the evaluation of biological PHV dysfunction. In this Review, we discuss the use of established imaging modalities for the detection of left-sided mechanical and biological PHV dysfunction and discuss the complementary role of MDCT in this context.

Mechanical aortic valve prostheses in the small aortic root: Top Hat versus standard CarboMedics aortic valve

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcome in patients with a small aortic root receiving either a standard CarboMedics mechanical aortic valve or a Top Hat CarboMedics valve (CarboMedics, Austin, TX), specifically designed for the small aortic root.

METHODS

Between 1986 and 2006, 316 consecutive patients underwent 19- or 21-mm mechanical aortic valve replacement, receiving either a CarboMedics Top Hat bileaflet valve (n = 56; mean age, 66 +/- 14 years) or a standard CarboMedics aortic valve replacement (n = 260; mean age, 60 +/- 13 years) at our institution based on institutional indications for the choice of type of valve prostheses. Median follow-up time was 83.5 months. We studied survival, valve-related and non-valve-related events, and hemodynamic performance by serial echocardiographic follow-up studies.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 8.9% in the Top Hat group and 10.0% in the standard group (p = 0.354). Five- and ten-year survival in patients in the Top Hat group was 83% and 67%, respectively. Five- and ten-year survival in the standard group was 73% and 59%, respectively (log-rank = 0.331). There were no differences in regard to valve-related and non-valve-related events. Cox regression analysis revealed age (hazard ratio, 1.045; 95% confidence interval, 1.026 to 1.066), previous cardiac surgery (hazard ratio, 1.812; 95% confidence interval, 1.101 to 2.982), additional procedures at the time of valve replacement (hazard ratio, 2.604; 95% confidence interval, 1.651 to 4.108), New York Heart Association class IV (hazard ratio, 3.645; 95% confidence interval, 1.214 to 10.945), and severely impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 2.253; 95% confidence interval, 1.289 to 3.941) to be independent predictors of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical aortic valve replacement in the small aortic root is associated with substantial perioperative mortality, in particular in the subset of patients requiring additional cardiac surgical procedures. Nevertheless, long-term outcome is satisfying. Because the type of prosthesis does not predict outcome in the multivariate Cox model, we conclude that use of the smaller Top Hat prosthesis can be recommended for the challenging cohort of patients with a small aortic root.

Clinical and echocardiographic assessment of the Medtronic Advantage aortic valve prosthesis: the Scandinavian multicentre, prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this report is the prospective, multicentre evaluation of clinical results and haemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Advantage aortic valve prosthesis.

METHODS

From April 2001 to June 2003, 166 patients (male:female 125:41; mean (SD) age 61.8 (11.8) years) received an aortic advantage valve prosthesis. Complete cumulative follow-up was 242.7 patient-years (maximum 3.2; mean 1.6 years). Postoperatively, patients underwent early (within 30 days) and 1 year transthoracic echocardiography.

RESULTS

30 day mortality was 2.4% (n = 4). Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from complications and linearised rates were as follows: 96.9 (1.6)% survival; 94.7 (1.3)% (2.06 patients/year) thrombo-embolism; 99.4 (0.6)% (0.4 patients/year) bleeding; 98.8 (0.9)% (0.8 patients/year) non-structural valve dysfunction; 98.8 (0.9)% (0.8 patients/year) reoperation. Valvular mean pressure gradients ranged from 16 (3) mm Hg for size 19 to 7 (2) mm Hg for size 27 and the corresponding effective orifice areas ranged from 1.2 (0.25) to 3.2 (0.66) cm(2). In all, left ventricular mass significantly decreased (p<0.001) and fractional shortening increased (p<0.001) from postoperative to 1 year echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemodynamic performance and early clinical results of Medtronic advantage in the aortic position were satisfactory and comparable with those of other bileaflet valves in current clinical use.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Age and Body Size on Late Survival

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify patient subgroups in which prosthesis-patient mismatch most influenced late survival.

METHODS

Over a 12-year period, 1,400 consecutive patients underwent bioprosthetic (933 patients) or mechanical (467) aortic valve replacement. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was defined as prosthetic effective orifice area/body surface area less than 0.75 cm2/m2 and was present with 11% mechanical and 51% bioprosthetic valves.

RESULTS

With bioprosthetic valves, prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival for patients less than 60 years old (10-year: 68% +/- 7% mismatch versus 75% +/- 7% no mismatch, p < 0.02) but not older patients (p = 0.47). Similarly, with mechanical valves, prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival for patients less than 60 years old (10-year: 62% +/- 11% versus 79% +/- 4%, p < 0.005) but not older patients (p = 0.26). For small patients (body surface area less than 1.7 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch did not impact survival with bioprosthetic (p = 0.32) or mechanical (p = 0.71) valves. For average-size patients (body surface area 1.7 to 2.1 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival with both bioprosthetic (p < 0.05) and mechanical (p < 0.005) valves. For large patients (body surface area greater than 2.1 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival with mechanical (p < 0.04) but not bioprosthetic (p = 0.40) valves.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthesis-patient mismatch had a negative impact on survival for young patients, but its impact on older patients was minimal. In addition, although prosthesis-patient mismatch was not important in small patients, prosthesis-patient mismatch negatively impacted survival for average-size patients and for large patients with mechanical valves.

Serial Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of small-sized sorin bicarbon prostheses

OBJECTIVE

The Sorin Bicarbon prosthesis (Sorin Biomedica, Saluggia, Italy) is a bileaflet valve with curved-profile leaflets, a rolling hinge mechanism, and a pyrolytic carbon-coated titanium alloy housing and sewing ring. Although the Sorin Bicarbon prosthesis has been implanted in greater than 80,000 patients, and reference values on the hemodynamic performance of valve prostheses are needed to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch, few Doppler echocardiographic data are available on the prosthesis in the aortic position. The aim of this study is to provide a detailed echocardiographic evaluation of the hemodynamic performance and regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Bicarbon prosthesis.

METHODS

The study included 182 patients who received a 21-mm (n = 61) or 23-mm (n = 121) Sorin Bicarbon prosthesis for pure or prevalent aortic stenosis who underwent serial echocardiograms at 3, 6, and 12 months after aortic valve replacement.

RESULTS

Mean and peak gradients significantly decreased (P <.001) during follow-up to values of 12 +/- 3 and 22 +/- 6 mm Hg for the 21-mm prosthesis and values of 11 +/- 4 and 19 +/- 6 mm Hg for the 23-mm prosthesis at 1 year. Left ventricular mass index showed a 17% decrease to 120 +/- 27 g/m(2) in recipients of the 21-mm prosthesis (P <.001) and a 21% decrease to 123 +/- 29 g/m(2) in recipients of the 23-mm prosthesis (P <.001). A larger prosthesis size was the only predictor of a higher left ventricular mass index regression. Among recipients of the 21-mm prosthesis, body surface area of greater than 1.85 m(2) was associated with a lower regression of left ventricular mass index. The effective orifice area index was 1.00 +/- 0.11 and 1.08 +/- 0.14 cm(2)/m(2) in recipients of the 21-mm and 23-mm prostheses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Size 21 mm and 23 mm Sorin Bicarbon prostheses show low transprosthetic gradients, with significant reduction of left ventricular mass index during the first postoperative year. The reported effective orifice areas might be useful for aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Prosthesis Size in Aortic Valve Replacement: Surgeon-Related Variable

A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the surgeon's impact on the selection of the size of prosthesis in aortic valve replacement. From January 1993 through December 1997, 748 patients underwent either isolated aortic valve replacement (530) or double valve replacement (218) with bileaflet valves. Depending on the operating surgeon, patients were divided into group A (367) or group B (381). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables in both groups were compared. Groups A and B were identical in demographic and clinical profiles. Cardiopulmonary bypass time, ischemic time, and early and late results in both groups were similar. Significantly more patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement in group A (169; 67.9%) received a large (≥25 mm) prosthesis compared with group B (69; 24.5%). Compared with group B, a large prosthesis was used in a significantly greater proportion of all patients in group A, irrespective of etiology, predominant aortic valve lesion, and age of the patient. Overall, the operating surgeon was identified as the most important predictor (odds ratio 3.5; p < 0.0001) of use of a large valve.

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

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is less than that of a normal human valve. This is a frequent problem in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and its main hemodynamic consequence is the generation of high transvalvular gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. The purposes of this report are to present an update on the concept of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch and to review the present knowledge with regard to its impact on hemodynamic status, functional capacity, morbidity and mortality. Also, we propose a simple approach for the prevention and clinical management of this phenomenon because it can be largely avoided if certain simple factors are taken into consideration before the operation.

An evaluation of prosthetic aortic valves using transesophageal echocardiography: the double-envelope technique

The conventional continuity equation uses nonsimultaneous measurements of blood flow velocities through the left ventricular outflow tract and across the aortic valve to calculate aortic valve area (AVA). We have noted that both velocities can be simultaneously obtained from continuous wave (CW) Doppler analysis (double-envelope [DE]). We hypothesize that prosthetic AVA can be calculated by using the DE technique, during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Prosthetic AVA was calculated in 41 of 45 patients immediately after aortic valve replacement by using the DE/AVA technique. Left ventricular outflow tract diameter was obtained from an esophageal view, while subvalvular (V(1)) and valvular (V(2)) peak velocities were simultaneously obtained from transgastric views by using CW Doppler. Prosthetic AVA and V(1)/V(2) ratio (Doppler velocity index) were calculated. V(1) was also measured by using pulse wave Doppler, as is conventionally done. Twenty-three Carbomedic (CM) and 18 Carpentier-Edwards (CE) AVA were evaluated. DE/AVAs for CM and CE valves correlated and agreed with that reported by the manufacturer (CM r(2) = 0.91, mean bias -0.25 cm(2) [SD 0.18]; CE r(2) = 0.73, mean bias -0.02 cm(2) [SD 0.27]). Calculated Doppler velocity index values agree with available data (mean bias 0.03 [SD 0.05]). The V(1) obtained by using the DE method was nearly identical to the V(1) obtained by using pulse wave (r(2) = 0.95, mean bias 0.02 m/s [SD 0.04 m/s]). TEE assessment of prosthetic AVA using the DE technique agrees with data reported by the manufacturer. Obtaining subvalvular and valvular velocities from the same CW Doppler trace may simplify the continuity equation and help avoid errors caused by beat-to-beat changes in blood flow. Quantitative prosthetic aortic valve assessment can be performed, on-line, with TEE by using the DE technique.

IMPLICATIONS

Quantitative assessment of prosthetic aortic valve area can be performed on-line by using transesophageal echocardiography using the double envelope technique.

Manual debridement of the aortic valve in elderly patients with degenerative aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE

We prospectively analyzed the short- and long-term results of manual debridement of the aortic valve in elderly patients with severe degenerative aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Between September 1988 and January 1997, 103 patients aged 73.7 +/- 6 years with degenerative aortic stenosis underwent the manual debridement technique. All had symptoms (angina or dyspnea, or both). Peak systolic gradient was 89 +/- 28 mm Hg. Forty-one patients (39.8%) had associated coronary artery disease necessitating revascularization.

RESULTS

Follow-up time was 42 +/- 21 months (range 3-98 months). The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 98 months was 50% (95% CI: 30%-70%). In-hospital mortality was 5.8% (6 patients), and late mortality was 21% (21 patients). No predictors of in-hospital mortality or of late mortality were detected. Nonfatal postoperative complications appeared in 25 patients (24%). At 8 years, freedom from endocarditis was 98% (95% CI: 95%-100%) and freedom from thromboembolic events was 99% (95% CI: 96%-100%). No patient required long-term anticoagulation as a result of the procedure. Fourteen patients (14%) required reoperation for aortic insufficiency (n = 5), restenosis (n = 8), and mitral regurgitation (n = 1). The probability of reoperation at 98 months was 23% (95% CI: 12%-35%).

CONCLUSION

Manual aortic valve debridement has low rates of in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, and thromboembolic and infectious events and it offers freedom from anticoagulation. However, the incidence of restenosis and reoperation is high in the long term. It may therefore be regarded as an alternative in aged patients with favorable valve anatomy (no distortion and calcium deposits only on the aortic surface of the cusps), especially in those with a small aortic anulus, associated coronary artery disease, and/or contraindication for anticoagulation.

Evaluation of prosthetic valve function and associated complications

Significant advances in imaging modalities have occurred to evaluate prosthetic valve function and associated complications. These developments involve predominantly the introduction of Doppler technology for the non-invasive determination of gradients and valve areas and TEE for an improved assessment of valve structure, function, and associated complications. The current role of cinefluoroscopy is mostly to complement TEE in the evaluation of motion of mechanical prosthetic valves in the aortic position. Cardiac catheterization is now rarely needed to assess valve function. Diagnosis of prosthetic valve obstruction can be performed in the majority of cases with transthoracic Doppler echocardiography. Differentiation of valve obstruction from normal valve function in small valves with high flow conditions, however, may be difficult. Because of this and the variability in normal valves among different prostheses, knowledge of the type and size of the implanted valve is essential. Patients and ultrasound laboratories are encouraged to seek and provide this information on a routine basis. Although transthoracic echocardiography is the main diagnostic modality for the serial evaluation of prosthetic valve function, it is important to recognize its limitations in assessing prosthetic mitral regurgitation and evaluating structural abnormalities of prosthetic valves. These are the situations in which TEE has the most impact. A summary of general indications of TEE in prosthetic valves is provided in Table 6. Finally, a baseline transthoracic Doppler study is essential in the overall follow-up and serial evaluation of valve function. For future comparisons, the best indices of valve functions are those obtained for patients as their own control, from a baseline Doppler echocardiographic study performed early after the operation.

Hemodynamic Comparison by Doppler Echocardiography of Valves in the Aortic Position: Value of the Continuity Equation to Assess Prosthetic Dysfunction

In 281 patients, we used Doppler echocardiography to compare the hemodynamic performance of different aortic prosthetic valves at three postoperative stages and investigated the value of the continuity equation in diagnosing aortic prosthetic obstruction. A baseline study was performed in 163 patients, a 5 +/- 2-month follow-up study was performed in 103 patients, and a 15 +/- 5-month follow-up study was performed in 65 patients. From baseline to the second study, left ventricular diastolic diameter, heart rate, and maximum (MG) and mean Doppler-derived gradient (MeG) decreased significantly, and left ventricular shortening fraction, systolic blood pressure, stroke volume, and prosthetic valvular area (PVA) increased significantly. No changes were found between the second and third studies. Thus, noninvasive hemodynamic values at the time of follow-up are reported in 171 patients: 86 with Björk-Shiley Monostrut, 27 with Carbomedics, 11 with Medtronic-Hall, 18 with Hancock modified, and 29 with Toronto valve bioprosthesis. Patients implanted with the Toronto had a larger prosthetic size (Monostrut 23 +/- 2 mm, Carbomedics 23 +/- 3 mm, Medtronic-Hall 23 +/- 2 mm, Hancock 23 +/- 2 mm, Toronto 25 +/- 2 mm, P < 0.01) despite a similar body surface area. MeG and MG were lower (MeG [in mmHg] Monostrut 12 +/- 5, Carbomedics 14 +/- 6, Medtronic-Hall 19 +/- 6, Hancock 11 +/- 4, Toronto 7 +/- 5; P < 0.01 between Toronto and all others), and PVA was greater (Monostrut 2.0 +/- 0.7 cm(2), Carbomedics 1.8 +/- 0.8 cm(2), Medtronic-Hall 1.6 +/- 0.7 cm(2), Hancock 1.7 +/- 0.5 cm(2), Toronto 2.2 +/- 0.9 cm(2); P < 0.01 between Toronto and Carbomedics, Medtronic-Hall, and Hancock), even compared with the same sizes in the other valves. A PVA of 0.9 cm(2) or less and MeG of 28 mmHg or more identified prosthetic obstruction with 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity. Hemodynamics change significantly from the early to the late postoperative state. The Toronto valve stentless porcine bioprostheses performs hemodynamically better than other valves. PVA measurement using the continuity equation may accurately identify prosthetic obstruction.

Hemodynamic performance of the 21-mm St. Jude BioImplant prosthesis using dobutamine Doppler echocardiography

This study examines the hemodynamic performance of small size St. Jude BioImplant aortic prostheses using dobutamine echocardiography. Eleven patients (3 women, mean age 75 years) who had undergone aortic valve replacement with a size 21-mm St. Jude BioImplant aortic prostheses at 10.8 +/- 5.1 months (SD) previously were studied. Dobutamine infusion was started at a rate of 5 microg/kg/min and increased to 10 microg/kg/min, and subsequently to 20 microg/kg/min at 15-minute intervals. Pulsed and continuous-wave Doppler studies were performed at rest and at the end of each stage. Effective orifice area, mean gradient, and the performance index across each prosthesis were calculated and cardiac output was determined by Doppler measurement of flow in the left ventricular outflow tract. Stress dobutamine increased heart rate and cardiac output by 51% and 56%, respectively (both p <0.0001), and the mean transvalvular gradient increased from 30.1 +/- 7.5 mm Hg at rest to 49.3 +/- 11.5 mm Hg at maximum stress (p <0.0005). The performance index increased progressively from 0.29 +/- 0.05 at rest to 0.40 +/- 0.10 at maximum stress (p <0.0005). Regression modeling analyses demonstrated that the maximum stress gradient was independent of all variables except the resting gradient (p = 0.03). Body surface area had no effect on the changes in cardiac output, effective orifice area, or transprosthetic gradient at maximum stress. Thus, these data demonstrate that the size 21-mm St. Jude BioImplant prosthesis exhibits suboptimal hemodynamic performance with transvalvular gradients consistent with mild to moderate aortic stenosis, both at rest and under stress conditions.

Application of the continuity equation and valve resistance to the evaluation of St. Jude Medical prosthetic aortic valve dysfunction

Doppler echocardiography was applied to the assessment of patients with surgically documented St. Jude medical aortic valve dysfunction. Derivation of effective orifice area and Doppler velocity index with the continuity equation and calculation of valve resistance accurately differentiated stenotic from regurgitant and normal valves.

Influence of the size of aortic valve prostheses on hemodynamics and change in left ventricular mass: implications for the surgical management of aortic stenosis

Discussion of aortic valve replacement has primarily concerned the choice between tissue and mechanical prostheses. Less emphasis has been placed on prosthesis size. Despite technical advances increasing prosthesis orifice area, small valves implanted in the unenlarged aortic root may not be significantly less obstructive than the stenotic native valves they replace.

METHODS

In this work we studied 52 patients (31 women, 21 men; mean age 59.2 years) in whom valve prostheses sized 19, 21, 23, or 25 mm (30 bioprostheses and 22 tilting disc valves) had been implanted to replace stenotic aortic valves. Most patients with 19 or 21 mm prostheses were women. Doppler and conventional echocardiographic studies were performed in the 10 days preceding the operation and between 10 and 40 months (mean 18 months) after the operation. The patients receiving larger valve sizes had significantly larger body surface areas than those receiving smaller valve sizes (mainly women).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between preoperative and postoperative diameters or left ventricular systolic function parameters, but left ventricular mass and mass index decreased in all four groups (albeit nonsignificantly in the 19 mm group, and with less statistical significance in the 21 mm group than in the 23 and 25 mm groups). Postoperative peak and mean transvalvular pressure drops were significantly greater in the 19 mm group than in the other groups, and the 21 mm group had significantly greater transvalvular pressure drops than the 25 mm group. Postoperative effective valve area was significantly smaller in the 19 mm group than in the 21 mm group, and significantly smaller in the 21 mm group than in the 23 and 25 mm groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that despite undeniable recent improvements in the design of artificial heart valves, 19 mm aortic prostheses continue to create significant obstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract and, possibly as a consequence of this, fail to bring about significant reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy.

Doppler echocardiographic comparison of small (19 mm) bileaflet and pericardial heart valve prostheses in aortic position

The resting haemodynamics of five types of small (19 mm) aortic valve prosthesis (2 bileaflet, 3 pericardial) were evaluated with Doppler echocardiography in 43 patients. Two received St Jude Medical and six CarboMedics bileaflet valves and 35 were given bioprostheses--16 Ionescu-Shiley, four Mitroflow and 15 Labcor-Santiago. No significant differences in peak or mean transvalvular pressure drop or in effective valve area were found between the bileaflet and the pericardial valves or among the three types of bioprosthesis. All but one of the bileaflet prostheses showed a characteristic regurgitation pattern, with two lateral and one central jet, and 16 (46%) of the bioprostheses showed central regurgitation, but in no case were these jets haemodynamically significant. Thus the 19 mm bileaflet and the studied pericardial prostheses all have satisfactory resting haemodynamics, and all are suitable for implanting in small aortic roots.