Defining patient-prosthesis mismatch and its effect on survival in patients with impaired ejection fraction

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

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.

Limitations in the Assessment of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Background Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) may affect survival but data are conflicting. It is assessed by relating effective orifice area (EOA) to body surface area (EOAi). EOA is patient-specific as the result of flow-velocity times area at the individual patient's outflow tract levels (LVOTA) divided by trans-prosthetic flow velocity. However, some studies use projected EOAs (i.e., valve size associated EOAs from other patient populations) to assess how PPM affects outcome.

Methods We analyzed 76 studies addressing hemodynamic outcome and/or mortality after bioprosthetic AVR.

Results In 48 studies, projected or measured EOA for calculation of EOAi and PPM assessment was used (of which 25 demonstrated an effect on survival). We identified 28 additional studies providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients after AVR. Despite EOA being a patient-specific parameter, 77% of studies assessing a PPM impact on survival used projected EOAs. The 28 studies are providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients in patients after AVR showed a highly significant, linear relationship between EOA and Bernoulli's gradient. Considering this relationship, it is surprising that relating EOA to body surface area (BSA) (EOAi) is standard but relating pressure gradients to BSA is not.

Conclusion We conclude that the majority of studies assessing PPM have used false assumptions because EOA is a patient-specific parameter and cannot be transferred to other patients. In addition, the use of EOAi to assess PPM may not be appropriate and could explain the inconsistent relation between PPM and survival in previous studies.

Early hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta™ surgical bioprosthesis aortic valve in Indian patient population: 12 month outcomes of the EVEREST post-market study

BACKGROUND

Indian patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) differ from western populations with respect to aortic annulus size and valve disease morphology. The purpose of this post-market, non-randomized observational study was to evaluate the early hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta™ bioprosthesis (Abbott, previously St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, US) in an Indian patient population.

METHODS

From January 2014 to September 2015, 100 patients (mean age 64.4 ± 7.1 years, 62% male) undergoing SAVR for valve disease (68% stenosis, 7% insufficiency, 25% mixed pathology) were enrolled across 10 centers in India. Patients implanted with a 19-27 mm Trifecta™ valve were eligible to participate and were prospectively followed for 12-months post-implantation. Echocardiographic hemodynamic performance was evaluated at pre-implant, pre-discharge and at 12-months by an independent core laboratory. Adverse events were adjudicated by the study sponsor. Functional status at 12-months was assessed according to NYHA classification. Continuous data was summarized using descriptive statistics (mean &standard deviation,) and categorical data was summarized using frequencies and percentages.

RESULT

Ninety patients (mean age 64.5, 62.2% male) completed the 12-month follow up. Significant improvements in hemodynamic valve performance were reported in 81 patients with available echocardiographic data at 12 months. Compared to baseline at 12-month follow up visit, mean effective orifice area increased from 0.75cm² to 1.61cm² (p < 0.0001), mean pressure gradient reduced to 10.42 mmHg from 51.47 mmHg (p < 0.0001), cardiac output increased from 4.46 l/min to 4.85 l/min (P 0.9254). Compared to baseline, functional status improved by ≥1 NYHA class in 75% of patients at 12 months (95% Clopper-Pearson (Exact) confidence limit [64.6%, 83.6%]). No instances of early mortality (< 30 days from index procedure) or structural valve dysfunction were reported.

CONCLUSION

In an Indian patient population, implantation of the Trifecta™ bioprosthesis is shown to be safe and associated with favorable early hemodynamic performance and improved functional status at 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical study has been registered under Clinical Trial Registry-India ( http://www.ctri.nic.in ) and registration number is CTRI/2014/02/004434 registered on 25 February 2014 retrospectively registered.

Patient prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement: An Indian perspective

CONTEXT

Perioperative period.

AIMS

Occurrence of PPM after AVR, factors associated with PPM, impact on mortality.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Teritary Care Referral Cardiac Centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of AVR procedures at a single centre over 4 years was conducted. Demographic, echocardiographic and outcome data were collected from institute database. Rahimtoola criteria of indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were used to stratify patients into PPM categories. Patients with and without PPM were compared for associated factors.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Independent t-test, chi-square test, logistic regression analysis, ROC-AUC, Youden index.

RESULTS

606 patients with complete data were analysed for PPM. The incidence of mild, moderate and severe PPM was 6.1% (37), 2.5% (15) and 0.5% (3) respectively. There was no impact of PPM on all-cause in-hospital mortality. PPM was observed more with Aortic Stenosis (AS) compared to Aortic Regurgitation (AR) as etiology. Aortic annulus indexed to BSA (iAA) had a very good predictive ability for PPM at <16mm/m 2 BSA.

CONCLUSIONS

PPM has lower incidence after AVR in this Indian population and does not increase early mortality. Patients with AS and iAA<16mm/m2BSA should be cautiously dealt with to prevent PPM.

Does patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement affect survival and quality of life in elderly patients?

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on survival, functional status, and quality of life (QoL) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with small prosthesis size in elderly patients.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and December 2013, 152 patients with pure aortic stenosis, aged at least 75 years, underwent AVR, with a 19 or 21 mm prosthetic heart valve. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.85 cm/m. Median age was 82 years (range 75-93 years). Mean follow-up was 56 months (range 1-82 months) and was 98% complete. Late survival rate, New York Heart Association functional class, and QoL (RAND SF-36) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, PPM was found in 78 patients (53.8%). Among them, 42 patients (29%) had an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.75 cm/m and 17 less than 0.65 cm/m (11.7%). Overall survival at 5 years was 78 ± 4.5% and was not influenced by PPM (P = NS). The mean New York Heart Association class for long-term survivors with PPM improved from 3.0 to 1.7 (P < 0.001). QoL (physical functioning 45.18 ± 11.35, energy/fatigue 49.36 ± 8.64, emotional well being 58.84 ± 15.44, social functioning 61.29 ± 6.15) was similar to that of no-PPM patients (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

PPM after AVR does not affect survival, functional status, and QoL in patients aged at least 75 years. Surgical procedures, often time-consuming, contemplated to prevent PPM, may therefore be not justified in this patient subgroup.

Aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and exercise capacity in adult patients with congenital heart disease

OBJECTIVES

To report the prevalence of aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in an adult population with congenital heart disease (CHD) and its impact on exercise capacity. Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) with a history of aortic valve replacement may outgrow their prosthesis later in life. However, the prevalence and clinical consequences of aortic PPM in ACHD are presently unknown.

METHODS

From the national Dutch Congenital Corvitia (CONCOR) registry, we identified 207 ACHD with an aortic valve prosthesis for this cross-sectional cohort study. Severe PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2 and moderate PPM as an indexed orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2 measured using echocardiography. Exercise capacity was reported as percentage of predicted exercise capacity (PPEC).

RESULTS

Of the 207 patients, 68% was male, 71% had a mechanical prosthesis and mean age at inclusion was 43.9 years ±11.4. The prevalence of PPM was 42%, comprising 23% severe PPM and 19% moderate PPM. Prevalence of PPM was higher in patients with mechanical prostheses (p<0.001). PPM was associated with poorer exercise capacity (mean PPEC 84% vs. 92%; p=0.048, mean difference =-8.3%, p=0.047). Mean follow-up was 2.6±1.1 years during which New York Heart Association (NYHA) class remained stable in most patients. PPM showed no significant effect on death or hospitalisation during follow-up (p=0.218).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we report a high prevalence (42%) of PPM in ACHD with an aortic valve prosthesis and an independent association of PPM with diminished exercise capacity.

Hemodynamic performance of Trifecta: single-center experience of 400 patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate postoperative hemodynamic gradients and early outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2013, 400 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta bioprosthesis. Gradients were calculated by transthoracic echocardiography before discharge. Data were collected retrospectively; patients with postoperative severe left ventricular dysfunction or > mild mitral regurgitation were excluded.

RESULTS

The mean age was 75.9 ± 8.5 years, 197 (49.25%) patients were male, and 140 (35%) were >80-years old. Concomitant procedures were performed in 207 (51.75%) patients, and 30 (7.5%) had redo procedures. Supraannular aortoplasty with bovine pericardium was necessary in 25 (6.25%) cases. Hospital mortality was 2.75% (11 patients). Postoperative peak and mean gradients were 21.7 ± 9.3 and 11.1 ± 4.3 mm Hg for 19-mm valves (n = 29); 19.5 ± 7 and 9.7 ± 3.6 mm Hg for 21-mm valves (n = 158); 17.3 ± 6.6 and 8.7 ± 3.2 mm Hg for 23-mm valves (n = 134); 15.1 ± 6.1 and 7.8 ± 3.3 mm Hg for 25-mm valves (n = 56); 13.2 ± 3.7 and 6.9 ± 2.6 mm Hg for 27-mm valves (n = 11). Nine patients had trivial and one had mild transvalvular regurgitation. Mean follow-up was 1 ± 0.62 years; no patient required reoperation. Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 and 2 years was 94.3% ± 1.3% and 93.7% ± 1.4%.

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative gradients are low after Trifecta implantation. Significant transvalvular regurgitation was not observed, but the incidence of supraannular aortoplasty may be increased.

Can postoperative mean transprosthetic pressure gradient predict survival after aortic valve replacement?

Background

In this study, we sought to determine the effect of the mean transprosthetic pressure gradient (TPG), measured at 6 weeks after aortic valve replacement (AVR) or AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on late all-cause mortality.

Methods

Between January 1998 and March 2012, 2,276 patients (mean age 68 ± 11 years) underwent TPG analysis at 6 weeks after AVR (n = 1,318) or AVR with CABG (n = 958) at a single institution. Mean TPG was 11.6 ± 7.8 mmHg and median TPG 11 mmHg. Based on the TPG, the patients were split into three groups: patients with a low TPG (<10 mmHg), patients with a medium TPG (10–19 mmHg) and patients with a high TPG (≥20 mmHg). Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was used to determine univariate predictors and multivariate independent predictors of late mortality.

Results

Overall survival for the entire group at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 97, 93, 87 and 67 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between patients with a low, medium or high TPG (p = 0.258). Independent predictors of late mortality included age, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a history of a cerebrovascular accident and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), severe PPM and TPG measured at 6 weeks postoperatively were not significantly associated with late mortality.

Conclusions

TPG measured at 6 weeks after AVR or AVR with CABG is not an independent predictor of all-cause late mortality and there is no significant difference in long-term survival between patients with a low, medium or high TPG.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on early and late mortality after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to determine the effect of PPM on early (≤30 days) and late mortality (>30 days) after AVR or AVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (AVR with CABG).

METHODS

Between January 1998 and March 2012, 2976 patients underwent AVR (n= 1718) or AVR with CABG (n=1258) at a single institution. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area (EOAI) ≤0.85 cm2/m2 and patients were divided into two groups based on the existence of PPM. Cumulative probability values of survival were estimated with Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using Breslow test. Univariate and multivariate independent predictors of early mortality were identified using logistic regression. Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was used to determine univariate and multivariate independent predictors of late mortality.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 6.7% in the PPM group vs 4.7% in the group with no PPM (p=0.013). Late mortality for the PPM group at 1, 5 and 10 years was 4%, 16% and 43%, respectively. Late mortality for the group with no PPM at 1, 5 and 10 years was 4%, 15% and 33% respectively. Independent predictors of early mortality included age, severely impaired left ventricular (LV) function, endocarditis, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time. Multivariate independent predictors of late mortality included age, severely impaired LV function, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), renal dysfunction, history of a cerebrovascular accident (CVA), CPB time and a history of previous cardiac surgery. PPM was not an independent predictor of early or late mortality.

CONCLUSION

PPM is not an independent predictor of both early and late mortality after AVR or AVR combined with CABG.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

We examined all patients with isolated AVR between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The JACVSD data collection form has a total of 255 variables. We defined PPM as an effective orifice area index of ≤ 0.85 m(2)/cm(2).

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: an initial single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

The Trifecta valve (St. Jude Medical) was introduced into clinical practice as a tri-leaflet stented pericardial valve designed for supra-annular placement in the aortic position. The present study aims to evaluate the preliminary results with this new bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Seventy patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta valve between August 2010 and December 2011. Thirty-three patients were male and 37 were female (52.9%). Mean age was 74.65 ± 7.63 (range 47-90 years). Prevalent cause of AVR was aortic stenosis in 64 (91.43%) patients. The mean preoperative pressure gradient was 50 ± 17 (range 20-84 mmHg), and the mean aortic valve area was 0.77 ± 0.33. Five (7.14%) patients were operated on due to aortic valve endocarditis. One patient was operated on due to isolated, severe aortic insufficiency. All patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Twenty-eight (40%) patients underwent concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 25), mitral valve replacement (n = 1), ablation of atrial fibrillation (n = 1) and septal myomectomy (n = 1). There were no intraoperative deaths. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.85% (2 of 70). One late death occurred during the in-hospital stay due to a multiorgan failure on postoperative day 60. There were 2 (2.85%) perioperative strokes. Mean pressure gradient decreased significantly from a preoperative value of 50 ± 17 mmHg to an intraoperative gradient of 9 ± 4 mmHg (Table 3). The mean gradients were 14, 11, 11, 8 and 6 mmHg for the 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 mm valve size, respectively. No prosthesis dislocation, endocarditis, valve thrombosis or relevant aortic regurgitation was observed at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial experience with the Trifecta valve bioprosthesis shows excellent outcomes with favourable early haemodynamics. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm those preliminary results.