A meta-analysis of effects of prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement on late mortality

Optimizing Valve Selection in Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Case Study on Addressing Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Early Structural Valve Deterioration in a Morbidly Obese Patient

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a fundamental approach for treating aortic valve stenosis (AVS), especially in high surgical risk patients. This case study underscores the criticality of meticulous procedural planning and precise valve selection in patients with severe AVS compounded by obesity. We report a case of a patient who, after receiving a 26 mm Edwards Sapiens 3 valve, presented with worsening exertional dyspnea and a declining indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). This deterioration indicated early structural valve deterioration (SVD), presumably due to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). A subsequent valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR using a 29 mm Medtronic Evolut Fx valve was successfully executed, leading to a notable improvement in EOAi. This case study emphasizes the complexities inherent in valve choice and sizing in TAVR, particularly highlighting the impact of PPM on obese patients and its potential to precipitate early SVD. The report further explores the emerging strategies in addressing TAVR valve dysfunctions via ViV interventions, shedding light on the nuanced and dynamic nature of TAVR management in obese patients. It advocates for tailored treatment strategies in managing such intricate cases, demonstrating the evolving landscape of TAVR procedures.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch and Aortic Root Enlargement: Indications, Techniques and Outcomes

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as implanting a prosthetic that is insufficiently sized for the patient receiving it. PPM leads to high residual transvalvular gradients post-aortic valve replacement and consequently results in left ventricular dysfunction, morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. Younger patients and patients with poor preoperative left ventricular function are more vulnerable to increased mortality secondary to PPM. There is debate over the measurement of valvular effective orifice area (EOA) and variation exists in how manufacturers report the EOA. The most reliable technique is using in vivo echocardiographic measurements to create tables of predicted EOAs for different valve sizes. PPM can be prevented surgically in patients at risk through aortic root enlargement (ARE). Established techniques include the posterior enlargement through Nicks and Manouguian procedures, and aortico-ventriculoplasty with the Konno-Rastan procedure, which allows for a greater enlargement but carries increased surgical risk. A contemporary development is the Yang procedure, which uses a Y-shaped incision created through the non- and left-coronary cusp commissure, undermining the nadirs of the non- and left-coronary cusps. Early results are promising and demonstrate an ability to safely increase the aortic root by up to two to three sizes. Aortic root enlargement thus remains a valuable and safe tool in addressing PPM, and should be considered during surgical planning.

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.

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.

Efficacy of larger valve sizing with underfilling in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of larger valve sizing beyond the commercially recommended annular range in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THVs).

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of larger balloon-expandable THV implantation with underfilling are poorly evaluated.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 692 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with SAPIEN3. A total of 271 patients who underwent SAPIEN 3 implantation were analyzed based on three border zones (Zone 1: 300-345 mm² , 23 vs. 20 mm; Zone 2: 400-430 mm² , 26 vs. 23 mm; Zone 3: 500-546 mm² , 29 vs. 26 mm). The primary endpoint was the effective orifice area (EOA) assessed by echocardiography at 1 year, and secondary endpoints were a 30-day mortality rate, procedural complications during TAVR, and a composite of death from any cause and heart failure requiring rehospitalization at 1 year.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, the EOA in the larger valve groups was greater than that in the recommended valve group in each zone (Zone 1: 1.45 ± 0.03 vs. 1.06 ± 0.06 cm² , p < 0.001; Zone 2: 1.83 ± 0.05 vs. 1.41 ± 0.05 cm² , p < 0.001; Zone 3: 1.93 ± 0.07 vs. 1.69 ± 0.07 cm² , p = 0.02). No significant difference in the secondary endpoint was observed in any of the zones.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the out-of-range larger SAPIEN 3 THVs with underfilling was associated with greater EOA at the 1-year follow-up and feasible in the selected patients.

Aortic root widening: “pro et contra”

In patients with a small aortic annulus, the clinical benefits of aortic valve replacement depend on avoidance of patient-prosthesis mismatch as it is associated with reduced overall survival. Aortic root widening or enlargement is a useful technique to implant larger valve prosthesis to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Posterior annular enlargement is the commonest technique used for aortic root enlargement. Consistent enlargement of the aortic root requires more extensive procedures like Manouguian or Konno-Rastan techniques. The patients commonly selected are younger patients with good life expectancy. However, caution is advised in applying this procedure in elderly patients, patients with heavily calcified annulus and when performing concomitant procedures. There is no definitive conclusion on the best material to use for the reconstruction of aortic annulus and aorta in aortic root enlargement procedures.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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.

Determinants of effective orifice area in aortic valve replacement: anatomic and clinical factors

Background

Obtaining adequate effective orifice area (EOA) in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is important to minimize pressure gradients across the prosthetic aortic valve (AV) and improve clinical outcomes. However, the predictors of EOA are unclear.

Methods

From July 2011 to March 2016, patients undergoing SAVR who were preoperatively evaluated using a computed tomography (CT) on the aortic root were enrolled. Indexed EOA (iEOA) was used as an indicator of prosthetic AV opening area. The aortic root parameters investigated were the annular diameter (max and min), annular perimeter, annular area, and maximal dimensions of the proximal ascending aorta. These variables were evaluated as predictors of EOA, and an individual surgeon was incorporated in analysis for verifying surgeon dependent factors.

Results

Among the 710 patients included in this study [age: 64.9±10.8 years; females: n=285 (40.1%)], 370 (52.1%) were implanted with bio-prosthesis. Mean prosthetic iEOA was 1.1±0.3 cm²/m². Univariable linear regression analysis showed that all indexed aortic root parameters (maximal and minimal annular diameters, annular perimeter, annular area, and sinus dimensions) were significantly associated with iEOA (P<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that indexed aortic annular area, indexed maximal diameter of the Valsalva sinus, female sex, and bio-prosthesis, supra-annular type prosthesis and surgeon were significant and independent determinants of iEOA (adjusted R²=0.513, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Aortic annular area and Valsalva sinus diameter are independent determinants for iEOA measured by preoperative CT; surgeon-dependent factors are also significant determinants in SAVR.

Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic valve is too small in relation to a patient's body size, thus resulting in high residual postoperative pressure gradients across the prosthesis. Severe PPM occurs in 2% to 20% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with 1.5- to 2.0-fold increase in the risk of mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the role of multimodality imaging in the assessment, prediction, prevention, and management of PPM following AVR. The risk of PPM can be anticipated at the time of AVR by calculating the predicted indexed from the normal reference value of EOA of the selected prosthesis and patient's body surface area. The strategies to prevent PPM at the time of surgical AVR include: 1) implanting a newer generation of prosthetic valve with better hemodynamic; 2) enlarging the aortic root or annulus to accommodate a larger prosthetic valve; or 3) performing TAVR rather than surgical AVR. The identification and quantitation of PPM as well as its distinction versus prosthetic valve stenosis is primarily based on transthoracic echocardiography, but important information may be obtained from other imaging modalities such as transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. PPM is characterized by high transprosthetic velocity and gradients, normal EOA, small indexed EOA, and normal leaflet morphology and mobility. Transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography are particularly helpful to assess prosthetic valve leaflet morphology and mobility, which is a cornerstone of the differential diagnosis between PPM and pathologic valve obstruction. Severe symptomatic PPM following AVR with a bioprosthetic valve may be treated by redo surgery or the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure with fracturing of the surgical valve stent.

Prevalence and long-term outcome of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and paradoxical low flow (PLF) have worse outcome compared with those with normal flow. Furthermore, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement is a predictor of reduced survival. However, the prevalence and prognostic impact of PPM in patients with PLF-AS are unknown. We aimed to analyze the prevalence and long-term survival of PPM in patients with PLF-AS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2010, 677 patients with severe AS, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, and aortic valve replacement were included (74±8 years; 42% women; aortic valve area, 0.69±0.16 cm(2)). A PLF (indexed stroke volume ≤35 mL/m(2)) was found in 26%, and after aortic valve replacement, 54% of patients had PPM, defined as an indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2). The combined presence of PLF and PPM was found in 15%. Compared with patients with noPLF/noPPM, those with PLF/PPM were significantly older, with more comorbidities. They also received smaller and biological bioprosthesis more often (all P<0.01). Although early mortality was not significantly different between groups, the 10-year survival rate was significantly reduced in case of PLF/PPM compared with noPLF/noPPM (38±9% versus 70±5%; P=0.002), even after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.45; P=0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large catheterization-based study, the coexistence of PLF-AS before surgery and PPM after surgery is associated with the poorest outcome.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

The clinical impacts of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been debated since Rahimtoola first reported PPM in 1978. Many reports discussing several aspects of PPM have been published to date, but the definitive clinical impacts of PPM have not yet been clarified.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to evaluate recent articles regarding PPM and discuss the latest findings.

RESULTS

Moderate PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) did not affect the surgical outcomes in several papers, but severe PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) affected early and late mortality in almost of the all papers in which it was reported. PPM had a greater effect on younger patients and patients with left ventricular dysfunction than it did on elderly patients and patients with preserved left ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

Based on recent findings, it is difficult to define the impact of PPM after AVR. To some degree, PPM affects the clinical outcomes after AVR; therefore, it is important to avoid PPM, especially severe PPM.

Update on aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch in Japan

The influence of aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM) on the clinical outcome has been an ongoing controversy. The reported prevalence of VP-PM after aortic valve replacement (AVR) ranges widely between 20 and 70 %. The inconsistent impact of VP-PM on short-term and long-term mortality, regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, and exercise capacity may be explained by differences of the patient populations, the definition of VP-PM, and the use of different prostheses. Moreover, many factors other than the severity of VP-PM should be taken into account when considering its impact on individual patients after AVR. Although the concept of VP-PM is easy to understand, it cannot be applied to the whole patient population. In Japan, the age of the candidates for AVR has increased markedly in recent years, but almost all elderly patients with a small BSA (<1.6 m(2)) have received newer-generation prostheses with a small outer diameter and large effective orifice area. Indeed, previous studies of Japanese patients have demonstrated that VP-PM was no more than moderate in most cases and its impact on clinical outcomes was generally acceptable. Although severe VP-PM is infrequent and its clinical implications are still unproven in elderly Japanese patients, it would seem reasonable to try to prevent severe VP-PM. Thus, VP-PM itself cannot be accepted as an independent risk factor in Japanese patients, but the useful preventive strategies for severe VP-PM in inactive very elderly persons remain controversial. The implantation of newer-generation biological or mechanical prostheses with or without aortic annular enlargement should be considered according to the characteristics of the patient and the risk-benefit ratio for carrying out a particular procedure in an individual patient.