Aortic Valve Prosthesis–Patient Mismatch and Long-Term Outcomes: 19-Year Single-Center Experience

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.

Early outcomes of patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) has been associated with numerous short- and long-term adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PPM on early postoperative results after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in daily practice.

METHODS

In this single-centre retrospective study, 150 non-consecutive patients from March 2019 to January 2020 with clinically indicated AVR with/without concomitant surgery were analysed. The study protocol included operative mortality, complication rate, and pre- and postoperative echocardiographic data. PPM was considered severe with indexed effective orifice area at <0.65 cm²/m², moderate at 0.65-0.85 cm²/m² and none at >0.85 cm²/m².

RESULTS

Moderate PPM was observed in 16 patients (10.6%). No patient had severe PPM. PPM was not related to early mortality (r = 0.40, p = 0.630), intra- (r = -0.076, p = 0.352) and postoperative (r = -0.0134, p = 0.102) events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, moderate PPM was a frequent finding after AVR, whereas severe PPM was not observed. PPM did not affect the early results after AVR. A long-term follow-up study in a large patient population is required to assess the actual influence of residual PPM.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch and surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes: Retrospective analysis of single-center surgical data

BACKGROUND

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) has been identified as a risk factor for mortality and reoperation in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We present a retrospective analysis of risk factors for PPM and the effects of PPM on early postoperative outcomes after SAVR.

METHODS

Chart review was conducted for patients (N = 3003) undergoing SAVR. PPM was calculated from valve reference orifice areas and patient body surface area. Logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors for PPM and develop a risk score from these results. Regression was also conducted to identify associations between projected PPM status and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Risk factors for PPM included female sex, higher body mass index (BMI), and use of the St. Jude Epic valve. Patients receiving St. Jude trifecta valves or mechanical valves were less likely to have predicted PPM. We developed a risk score using BMI, sex, and valve type, and retrospectively predicted PPM in our cohort. Mild PPM (odds ratio [OR] = 2.267), severe PPM (OR = 2.869), male sex (OR = 2.091), and younger age (OR = 0.940) were all predictors of SAVR reoperation, while aortic root replacement was associated with reduced reoperation rates (OR = 0.122). Severe PPM carried a risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 3.599), and moderate PPM carried a smaller but significant risk (OR = 1.920). Other factors increasing postoperative morbidity and mortality included older age, renal failure, and diabetes.

CONCLUSION

PPM could be retrospectively predicted in our cohort using a risk calculation from sex, BMI and valve type. We conclude that all degrees of PPM carry risk for mortality and reoperation.

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.

Early Hemodynamic Profile after Aortic Valve Replacement - A Comparison between Three Mechanical Valves

INTRODUCTION

There are scarce data comparing different mechanical valves in the aortic position. The objective of this study was to compare the early hemodynamic changes after aortic valve replacement between ATS, Bicarbon, and On-X mechanical valves.

METHODS

We included 99 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with mechanical valves between 2017 and 2019. Three types of mechanical valves were used, On-X valve (n=45), ATS AP360 (n=32), and Bicarbon (n=22). The mean prosthetic valve gradient was measured postoperatively and after six months.

RESULTS

Preoperative data were comparable between groups, and there were no differences in preoperative echocardiographic data. Pre-discharge echocardiography showed no difference between groups in the ejection fraction (P=0.748), end-systolic (P=0.764) and end-diastolic (P=0.723) diameters, left ventricular mass index (P=0.348), aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient (P=0.454), and indexed aortic prosthetic orifice area (P=0.576). There was no difference in the postoperative aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient between groups when stratified by valve size. The changes in the aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient of the intraoperative period, at pre-discharge, and at six months were comparable between the three prostheses (P=0.08). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that female gender (beta coefficient -0.242, P=0.027), body surface area (beta coefficient 0.334, P<0.001), and aortic prosthetic size (beta coefficient -0.547, P<0.001), but not the prosthesis type, were independent predictors of postoperative aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient.

CONCLUSION

The three bileaflet mechanical aortic prostheses (On-X, Bicarbon, and ATS) provide satisfactory early hemodynamics, which are comparable between the three valve types and among different valve sizes.

Impact of valve size, predicted effective and indexed effective orifice area after aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

The impact of manufacturer labeled prosthesis size and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement is not clear although indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) has been associated with worse survival.

METHODS

Data was retrospectively collected from Jan 2000-Dec 2019 for prosthesis type, model, and size for isolated aortic valve replacements. Stratified survival was compared between groups and subgroups for labeled valve size, EOA and predicted patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

RESULTS

A total of 3444 patients were included. Moderate and severe PPM was 15.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Cumulative lifetime hazard was worse for biological valves (mortality: biological 77.7% vs. mechanical 64.8%, p = .001). Moderate prosthetic aortic stenosis (AS), (EOA = 1-1.5 cm² ) was 12.1% and severe prosthetic AS (EOA ≤ 1 cm² ) was 0.8%, respectively. Survival was 10.5 ± 0.4 years with moderate to severe prosthetic AS (EOA≤1.5 cm² ) versus 12.6 ± 0.2 years with mild to no prosthetic AS (EOA>1.5 cm² ), p = .001. Worse survival in the presence of moderate-severe prosthetic AS was seen with biological valves (9.7 ± 0.4 years vs. 11.2 ± 0.2 years, p = .001 for EOA≤1.5, >1.5 cm² , respectively). Moderate to severe PPM was associated with worse survival (11.1 ± 0.4 years for iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² vs. 12.5 ± 0.2 years with iEOA > 0.85 cm² /m² , p = .001). Moderate to severe PPM predicted worse long term survival (hazard ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.37-9.25; p = .009).

CONCLUSION

Predicted prosthetic moderate to severe AS and moderate to severe PPM adversely affect long term survival. Smaller valves are associated with reduced survival.

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.

Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Worsens Long-Term Survival: Insights From the FinnValve Registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on long-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is controversial. We sought to investigate the incidence of PPM and its impact on survival and reinterventions in a Finnish nationwide cohort.

METHODS

In the context of the nationwide FinnValve registry, we identified 4097 patients who underwent SAVR with a stented bioprosthesis with or without myocardial revascularization. The indexed effective orifice areas (EOAs) of surgical bioprostheses were calculated using literature-derived EOAs. PPM was graded as moderate (EOA 0.65-0.85 cm²/m²) or severe (EOA ≤0.65 cm²/m²).

RESULTS

The incidence of PPM was 46.0%. PPM was moderate in 38.8% (n = 1579) patients and severe in 7.2% (n = 297) patients. Time-trend analysis showed that the proportion of PPM decreased significantly from 74% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 (P < .01). Severe PPM was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.76; P = .02). Severe PPM was not associated with an increased risk of repeat AVR (adjusted HR, 5.90; 95% CI, 0.95-36.5; P = .06). In a subanalysis of patients greater than or equal to 70 years of age, in comparison with no PPM, any PPM (adjusted HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; P = .01) and severe PPM (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; P < 0.01) were associated with increased risk of 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM after SAVR had a negative impact on survival. This study demonstrated that the effects of PPM should not be overlooked in elderly undergoing SAVR.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Increases Early and Late Mortality in Low Risk Aortic Valve Replacement

The concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) has gained much attention since first described 40 years ago. Previous studies have shown conflicting evidence regarding increased early and late morbidity and mortality with PPM after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PPM on short- and long-term mortality in low-risk patients after isolated AVR. A retrospective, single-center study involving 1707 consecutive patients ≤80 years of age with preserved left ventricular systolic function who underwent elective, primary isolated AVR operations from 2008 to 2018. Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to the presence of PPM (n = 96), defined as effective orifice area index <0.85 cm²/m² body surface area, and no-PPM (n = 1611). The effect of PPM on mortality was evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4.2% in PPM group vs 0.6 in no-PPM group; P = 0.005). PPM occurred more in female gender, obese and older patients. PPM was highly associated with long-term all-cause mortality (median 4 years [Q1-Q3 2-7]; HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.27-2.55, P = 0.002), and remained strongly and independently associated after adjustment for other risk factors (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10-2.34, P = 0.014). In propensity score-matched analysis, the adjusted mortality risk was higher in PPM group (HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.22-3.39, P = 0.006) compared to no-PPM group. In a single-centre observational study, PPM increased early mortality and was independently associated with long-term all-cause mortality after low-risk, primary isolated AVR operations. Strategies to avoid PPM should be explored and implemented.

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.

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.

Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis

OBJECTIVES

The study objectives were to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a novel stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis 2 years after implantation.

METHODS

The PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNT Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic moderate/severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation at centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States. We report the outcomes and hemodynamic performance in patients with up to 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 1273 patients were enrolled, and 1110 underwent implantation. Among patients undergoing implantation, the mean age was 70.2 ± 8.9 years; 833 (75.0%) were male. Risk of mortality (Society of Thoracic Surgeons) was 2.0% ± 1.4%. At the time of analysis, 604 patients had completed the 2-year follow-up visit. Linearized late event rates were as follows: all death, 2.68%; valve-related death, 0.42%; valve thrombosis, 0.05%; endocarditis, 0.94%; thromboembolism, 1.68%; all hemorrhage, 2.94%; major hemorrhage, 1.99%; all paravalvular leak, 0.26%; and major paravalvular leak, 0.05% per patient-year. Mean 2-year aortic gradient and effective orifice area were 13.4 ± 5.0 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.37 cm², respectively. Moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were observed in 43.5% and 34.8% of patients at 2 years, respectively. Improvement in New York Heart Association class compared with baseline was observed in 73.0% with moderate mismatch and 74.1% with severe mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The Avalus (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) bovine pericardial valve demonstrates good clinical and safety outcomes at 2 years. Hemodynamic performance shows mean gradients comparable to currently available bovine pericardial aortic valves. There was no clinical impact of moderate to severe mismatch at 2 years. Further follow-up is required to evaluate midterm to long-term clinical outcome.

Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Rationale, Patient Selection, Technique, and Outcomes

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is common after surgical valve aortic replacement. A significant percentage of patients with a small annulus have moderate to severe PPM. The outcomes for patients with larger effective orifice areas and lower gradients are better than for patients with PPM. With the advent of valve-in-valve TAVR, a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis can be treated with a percutaneous approach. However, the issue of PPM cannot be overcome by simply implanting a new valve. The technique of bioprosthetic valve fracture was therefore developed. This allows for implantation of a fully expanded transcatheter valve and results in a large effective orifice.

Global longitudinal strain in prosthesis-patient mismatch: relation to left ventricular mass regression and outcomes

AIMS

Aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) increases left ventricular (LV) afterload and prevents LV mass regression (LVMR) after surgery. This study was designed to investigate the association between the baseline global longitudinal strain (GLS) and the postoperative LVMR, and its relation to adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 316 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing isolated mechanical prosthesis implantation were screened, and data from 91 patients with aortic PPM and 165 non-PPM patients were retrospectively collected. All 256 patients underwent measurement of GLS by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography preoperatively, and were followed up for postoperative changes of LV mass index (LVMi) and other clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, LVMi in PPM patients decreased significantly from 139.6 ± 20.8 to 119.6 ± 26.5 g/m (P < 0.001). These patients were divided into two groups according to the median value of the reduction rate of LVMi at final follow-up, and preoperative GLS markedly decreased in PPM patients with insignificant reduction in LVMi. Multivariate analysis identified preoperative GLS (odds ratio 3.45, 95% confidence interval 1.27-11.05, P = 0.002) and preoperative LVMi (odds ratio 2.87, 95% confidence interval 1.21-8.13, P = 0.012) as independently associated with an insignificant LVMR. Moreover, PPM patients with limited reduction in LVMi were at an increased risk of cardiac death and major adverse valve-related events.

CONCLUSION

In patients with aortic PPM early after surgery, reduced preoperative GLS could be a novel sensitive risk factor for a limited regression of LV hypertrophy, and this is associated with an increased risk of adverse events in PPM patients.

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.

Aortic root enlargement to mitigate patient-prosthesis mismatch: do early adverse events justify reluctance?†

OBJECTIVES:

Concomitant aortic root enlargement (ARE) at the time of surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch, an important predictor of adverse long-term outcome.

METHODS:

We performed a single-centre, retrospective analysis of 4120 patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement, of whom 171 (4%) had concomitant ARE between January 2005 and December 2015. The analysis of postoperative outcome and early mortality was performed. Owing to inequality of the groups, patients were matched 1:1.

RESULTS:

The mean age of all 4120 patients was 68.8 ± 10.5 years, and comorbidities were equally balanced after matching. The mean aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and total operative time were prolonged by 19, 20 and 27 min in the ARE group, respectively. Early mortality was not statistically significantly different with 1.4% in the surgical aortic valve replacement and 1.8% in the ARE group. Postoperative complications were <5% in all matched 338 patients: bleeding (3% vs 3%), pericardial effusion (3.0% vs 4.2%), sternal instability (1.8% vs 0%) and sternal wound infection (3.0% vs 1.2%). A significant higher number of patients had respiratory failure after ARE (unmatched: 17.1% vs 9.9%, P < 0.001; matched: 18.3% vs 9.5%, P = 0.028). Factors independently associated with overall mortality were age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.71], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.47), diabetes (HR 1.82), atrial fibrillation (HR 2.14) and postoperative respiratory failure (HR 2.84).

CONCLUSIONS:

ARE can be performed safely in experienced centres with no significant increase in the risk of early postoperative surgical complications and early mortality. However, the surgeon and the intensive care unit team should be aware of an increased risk for postoperative respiratory failure in ARE patients.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch - what cardiac anesthesiologists need to know?

Prosthesis-patient Mismatch (PPM) is not uncommon with an incidence reported up to 70% after aortic valve (AV) replacement. Severe forms of PPM are less common (up to 20%); PPM can lead to increased short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is important to discriminate PPM from other forms of prosthetic valve dysfunction. Sometimes, prosthetic valve degenerative disease may coexist with PPM. Echocardiography plays an important role in the prevention and diagnosis of PPM. Preemptive strategies to prevent PPM include insertion of newer generation prosthetic valves with better hemodynamic characteristics, stentless prosthesis, aortic root enlargement to insert a larger prosthesis, aortic homograft, and transcutaneous AV implantation. We present an illustrative case and review the literature on PPM pertinent to anesthesiologists.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Within Degenerated Aortic Surgical Bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 Valve-in-Valve Registry

BACKGROUND

Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves has shown that valve-in-valve (VIV) TAVR is a feasible therapeutic option with acceptable acute procedural results.

OBJECTIVES

The authors examined 30-day and 1-year outcomes in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing VIV TAVR.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic degeneration of surgical aortic bioprostheses at high risk (≥50% major morbidity or mortality) for reoperative surgery were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 VIV trial and continued access registries.

RESULTS

Valve-in-valve procedures were performed in 365 patients (96 initial registry, 269 continued access patients). Mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.1 ± 4.7%. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 2.7%, stroke was 2.7%, major vascular complication was 4.1%, conversion to surgery was 0.6%, coronary occlusion was 0.8%, and new pacemaker insertion was 1.9%. One-year all-cause mortality was 12.4%. Mortality fell from the initial registry to the subsequent continued access registry, both at 30 days (8.2% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p = 0.0001) and at 1 year (19.7% vs. 9.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). At 1 year, mean gradient was 17.6 mm Hg, and effective orifice area was 1.16 cm², with greater than mild paravalvular regurgitation of 1.9%. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%), and mass index decreased (135.7 to 117.6 g/m²), with reductions in both mitral (34.9% vs. 12.7%) and tricuspid (31.8% vs. 21.2%) moderate or severe regurgitation (all p < 0.0001). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased (mean: 43.1 to 77.0) and 6-min walk test distance results increased (mean: 163.6 to 252.3 m; both p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associated with relatively low mortality and complication rates, improved hemodynamics, and excellent functional and quality-of-life outcomes at 1 year. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNER II]; NCT01314313).

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.

Moderate Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Has No Negative Effect on Patients' Functional Status After Aortic Valve Replacement With CarboMedics Prosthesis

Background:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the subject of continuing debate in the cardiac surgery field.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and severity of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and the functional status of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a CarboMedics prosthesis in the mid-term follow up.

Patients and Methods:

We retrospectively studied 66 consecutive patients who were referred to AVR with a CarboMedics prosthesis at the Rajaie cardiovascular medical and research center, a university referral hospital in Tehran, Iran. The severity of PPM as well as clinical and echocardiographic parameters and the patients’ New York heat association (NYHA) functional classification status, operative data and postoperative complications, and mortality in a mid-term (4 - 5 months) follow up period was assessed. Severe PPM was defined as the effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the patient’s body surface area (BSA) < 0.65 cm²/m² and moderate PPM was defined as the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) between 0.65 and 0.85 cm²/m².

Results:

Of the 66 studied patients, 39 were male and 27 were female. The mean age of the patients was 43 ± 17 with a range of 6 - 76 years. Implanted sizes of the CarboMedics AV prosthesis in 22 patients were 19 and 21 mm, and in 44 patients were 23 and 25 mm. Eleven patients had moderate PPM (IEOA < 0.85 cm²/m²) and 55 of them did not have PPM (IEOA ≥ 0.85 cm²/m²). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the echocardiographic trans-aortic pressure gradients (35.6 ± 19 vs. 23.2 ± 16 mmHg; P = 0.061) and the mean NYHA functional classification (1.10 ± 0.3 vs. 1.01 ± 0.10; P = 0.074) after AVR in the mid-term follow up.

Conclusions:

Moderate PPM has no negative effect on echocardiographic trans-aortic pressure gradients or the patients’ NYHA functional status after AVR with a CarboMedics prosthesis in the mid-term follow up.