Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on tricuspid valve regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension following mitral valve replacement

Intentional bioprosthetic tricuspid valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve-in-valve deployment

While transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation may reduce the number of lifetime surgical reinterventions in some patients with congenital heart disease, in other patients the bioprosthetic valve ring can lead to patient-prosthesis mismatch due to reduction of internal diameter if a transcatheter valve is implanted. A 49-year-old woman with multiple prior cardiac surgeries presented with heart failure due to bioprosthetic tricuspid valve stenosis. Initial predilation valvuloplasty suggested conventional ViV implant would produce patient-prosthesis mismatch, therefore, we intentionally fractured the bioprosthetic valve ring to facilitate optimal hemodynamics with implantation of a 29 mm transcatheter valve.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement: A pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data

Objective

The hemodynamic effect and early and late survival impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement remains insufficiently explored.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English language original publications. The search yielded 791 potentially relevant studies. The final review and analysis included 19 studies compromising 11,675 patients.

Results

Prosthetic effective orifice area was calculated with the continuity equation method in 7 (37%), pressure half‐time method in 2 (10%), and partially or fully obtained from referenced values in 10 (53%) studies. Risk factors for PPM included gender (male), diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease, and the use of bioprostheses. When pooling unadjusted data, PPM was associated with higher perioperative (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32–2.10; p < .001) and late mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.21–1.77; p < .001). Moreover, PPM was associated with higher late mortality when Cox proportional‐hazards regression (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.57–2.47; p < .001) and propensity score (HR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.34–2.95; p < .001) adjusted data were pooled. Contrarily, moderate (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84–1.22; p = .88) or severe (HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.89–1.58; p = .24) PPM were not related to higher late mortality when adjusted data were pooled individually. PPM was associated with higher systolic pulmonary pressures (mean difference: 7.88 mmHg; 95% CI: 4.72–11.05; p < .001) and less pulmonary hypertension regression (OR: 5.78; 95% CI: 3.33–10.05; p < .001) late after surgery.

Conclusions

Mitral valve PPM is associated with higher postoperative pulmonary artery pressure and might impair perioperative and overall survival. The relation should be further assessed in properly designed studies.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on early and late outcomes after mitral valve replacement: a meta-analysis

Background

Prognostic significance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains uncertain because of the limited studies reporting inconsistent or even contrary results. This meta-analysis pooled results of all available studies comparing early and late prognoses between patients with significant mitral PPM and those without.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching Pubmed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Impact of PPM on postoperative hemodynamic results, thirty-day mortality, overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and primary morbidity after MVR was evaluated via meta-analysis. Robustness of pooled estimates, source of heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed via sensitivity analyses, meta-regression as well as subgroup analysis stratified according to methodological or clinical heterogeneity, or sequential omission method, and funnel plot or Begg's and Egger's tests, respectively.

Results

Nineteen cohort studies involving 9302 individuals (PPM group: n = 5109, Control group: n = 4193) were included for meta-analysis. Total PPM and severe PPM prevalence were 3.8%-85.9% and 1%-27%, with a mean value of 54.9% and 14.1%, respectively. As compared with control group, mitral PPM group demonstrated a poorer postoperative hemodynamic status of higher mean and peak residual transprosthetic pressure gradients (TPG), higher postoperative systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) and less reduction, higher postoperative pulmonary hypertension (PH) prevalence and less PH regression, smaller net atrioventricular compliance, less NYHA class decrease, higher postoperative functional tricuspid regurgitation prevalence and less regression. The PPM group also revealed a higher thirty-day mortality, long-term overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and postoperative congestive heart failure prevalence, which were positively correlated with the severity of PPM if it was classified into tri-level subgroups. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence, and the AF regression were analogous between groups. Most pooled estimates were robust according to sensitivity analyses. Male patients and bioprosthesis implantation proportion were prominent source of between-study heterogeneity on thirty-day mortality. Publication bias was not significant in tests for all the outcomes, except for SPAP and TPG.

Conclusions

Mitral PPM would result in poorer postoperative hemodynamics and worse early and late prognosis. Severe PPM must be avoided since deleterious impact of mitral PPM was severity dependent.

Mitral valve replacement in mitral stenosis; the problem of small left ventricle

Background

Mitral valve stenosis in adults especially due to rheumatic heart disease may be associated with a smaller than normal left ventricular cavity. Mitral valve replacement in such cases may lead to hemodynamic instability either during weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass or in the early postoperative period manifested by the need for inotropic support and even mortality due to low cardiac output syndrome.

Patients and methods

184 patients with predominately severe stenotic mitral valves who underwent elective isolated mitral valve replacement in the period between January 2012 and January 2018 at our hospital were included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 matched groups; (small LV group) consisting of 86 cases and (normal or dilated LV group) consisting of 98 cases.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in operative details among both groups apart from the need for inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump due to low cardiac output which were statistically significantly higher in (small LV group) than (normal or dilated LV group) with a p-values of 0.01 and 0.03 respectively. Within the ICU stay only the incidence of occurrence of heart failure was significantly higher in (small LV group) with a p-value of 0.008. No statistically significant difference could be elicited in the in-hospital mortality between both groups (p-value = 0.1).

Conclusion

Patients with mitral valve stenosis and small left ventricular cavity are in a higher need for inotropic and even mechanical support after mitral valve replacement as well as at a higher risk for the development of heart failure before hospital discharge than patients with mitral stenosis and normal-sized left ventricular cavity.

Comparison of Mitral Valve Repair versus Replacement for the Progression of Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation

Background: Function tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is frequently observed in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery. It is unclear that mitral valve repair (MVr) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) has influence on the likelihood of late TR progression.

Methods: This study included 193 patients with degenerative mitral valve disease who underwent either MVr or MVR. Detailed preoperative materials, follow-up information, and echocardiographic data were collected and statistically analyzed.

Results: At 6 and 12 months postoperatively, MVR patients were more likely to have New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms than MVr patients (6 mo: 15.2% vs 5.0%, 12 mo: 13.0% vs 4.0%, both P <0.05). At 24 months, the incidence of Grade 1+ TR was significantly higher in MVR patients than MVr patients (25.0% vs 12.9%, P <0.05). In univariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.036, P = 0.036), MVR (OR = 2.256, P = 0.033), and preoperative TR area (TRA; OR = 1.541, P = 0.047) were significant predictors for TR progression. In multivariate logistics analysis, only MVR was independently risk factor (P = 0.006). Subsequently, patients were divided into tricuspid valve repair (TVr) group and untreated group. In both subgroups, MVR patients were associated with significantly larger TRA (P <0.01).

Conclusion: MVR was an independent risk factor for TR progression, whether tricuspid valve was treated or not.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Negatively Affects Outcomes after Mitral Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of 10,239 Patients

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on the risk of perioperative and long-term mortality after mitral valve replacement.

METHODS

Databases were researched for studies published until December 2018. Main outcomes of interest were perioperative and 10-year mortality and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

The research yielded 2,985 studies for inclusion. Of these, 16 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included was 10,239, who underwent mitral valve replacement. The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement was 53.7% (5,499 with prosthesis-patient mismatch and 4,740 without prosthesis-patient mismatch). Perioperative (OR 1.519; 95%CI 1.194-1.931, P<0.001) and 10-year (OR 1.515; 95%CI 1.280-1.795, P<0.001) mortality was increased in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement had higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure and transprosthethic gradient and lower indexed effective orifice area and left ventricle ejection fraction.

CONCLUSION

Prosthesis-patient mismatch increases perioperative and long-term mortality. Prosthesis-patient mismatch is also associated with pulmonary hypertension and depressed left ventricle systolic function. The findings of this study support the implementation of surgical strategies to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in order to decrease mortality rates.

Effect of prosthesis patient mismatch in mitral position on pulmonary hypertension

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is associated with poor outcome after mitral valve replacement (MVR). We proposed to evaluate the effect of valve prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) on pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure following MVR.

METHODS

Five hundred patients who have undergone MVR were studied retrospectively. Postoperative PA systolic pressure (PASP) measured 6 months postoperatively by Doppler echocardiography was compared with preoperative values. PASP ≥ 40 mmHg was defined as PAH. Mitral valve effective orifice area was calculated by the continuity equation and indexed for body surface area. PPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area ≤ 1.2 cm2/m2. A multivariate model was constructed to ascertain the independent determinants of systolic PA pressure. Also, a propensity score model was constructed to overcome the baseline differences between the PPM and no PPM groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of PPM in this study was 37.2%. The average postoperative PASPs were 30.49 and 42.35 mmHg in the no PPM and PPM groups, respectively; (P < 0.001). Regression of PAH in the PPM and no PPM groups was 76.26% and 20.64%, respectively; (P < 0.001). The indexed effective orifice area correlated well with postoperative PASP (r = 0.71). The overall survival and freedom from cardiac death at 10 years were 79.8% and 85.3%; and at 20 years were 66.5% and 74.3%, respectively. Both, overall survival and the freedom from cardiac death were higher in the no PPM group than in the PPM group; (P < 0.001). Propensity score matching analysis yielded 112 pairs of the PPM and no PPM cohorts, which revealed higher overall survival and freedom from cardiac death in the no PPM group; (P = 0.028 and 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral PPM is an independent predictor of persistent PAH after MVR along with associated morbidity and reduced survival.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Mitral Valve Replacement: Comparison of Different Methods of Effective Orifice Area Calculation

PURPOSE

The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement (MVR) has been reported to vary. The purpose of the current study was to investigate incidence of PPM according to the different methods of calculating effective orifice area (EOA), including the continuity equation (CE), pressure half time (PHT) method and use of reference EOA, and to compare these with various echocardiographic variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 166 individuals who received isolated MVR due to rheumatic mitral stenosis and had postoperative echocardiography performed between 12 and 60 months after MVR. EOA was determined by CE (EOA(CE)) and PHT using Doppler echocardiography. Reference EOA was determined from the literature or values offered by the manufacturer. Indexed EOA was used to define PPM as present if ≤1.2 cm²/m².

RESULTS

Prevalence of PPM was different depending on the methods used to calculate EOA, ranging from 7% in PHT method to 49% in referred EOA method to 62% in CE methods. The intraclass correlation coefficient was low between the methods. PPM was associated with raised trans-prosthetic pressure, only when calculated by CE (p=0.021). Indexed EOA(CE) was the only predictor of postoperative systolic pulmonary artery (PA) pressure, even after adjusting for age, preoperative systolic PA pressure and postoperative left atrial volume index (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of mitral PPM varied according to the methods used to calculate EOA in patients with mitral stenosis after MVR. Among the various methods used to define PPM, EOA(CE) was the only predictor of postoperative hemodynamic parameters.

Predictors of persistent pulmonary hypertension after mitral valve replacement

Persistent pulmonary hypertension (P-PH) after mitral valve replacement (MVR) leads to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We sought to determine which factors were involved in its occurrence. Patients undergoing MVR for a 3-year period were collected in a retrospective way. We excluded those with an available follow-up shorter than 3 months. Sample size was 111 patients. PH was diagnosed if systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) estimated by Doppler echocardiography was >40 mmHg. Clinical, echocardiographic, and surgical factors were analyzed. P-PH was present in 42.3 % of patients after 12.6 months of mean follow-up. P-PH was more frequently observed in elderly and female patients, in those with severe degrees of PH before surgery, and significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR). On multivariable analysis, significant TR (OR 1.739; p = 0.01) and more severe degrees of PH before surgery (OR 1.761; p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the presence of P-PH after MVR. Surgical factors related to P-PH were prosthesis size and tricuspid annuloplasty: no need for the performing of tricuspid annuloplasty (OR 0.345; p = 0.025) and the implantation of a smaller prosthesis (OR 0.656; p = 0.004) were related to higher rates of P-PH after MVR. MVR was associated with high prevalence of P-PH after mid-term follow-up. Both PH and significant TR before surgery were associated with P-PH. Our data point out that MVR should be planned before the development of PH and greater TR. Smaller prosthetic size is also a risk factor for P-PH and bigger prostheses are desirable when possible.

Echocardiographically derived effective valve opening area in mitral prostheses: a comparative analysis of various calculations using continuity equation and pressure half time method

Detection of dysfunctional mitral valve prostheses (MP) remains complex even though being optimized by considering echocardiographically derived prosthetic effective orifice area (VA). The purpose was to compare VA in MP, calculated by the continuity equation (CE) using peak velocities (CEVpeak), mean velocities (CEVmean), velocity-time integrals (CEVTI) and the pressure half time method using 220 ms as constant first (PHT220) as well as optimized constants. In 267 consecutive patients with normally functioning MP, we investigated VA within the first postoperative month. With increasing prosthetic sizes, mean VA values also increase in all calculations. The statistical curves demonstrate no significant difference in graphical steepness but show different levels. Comparison of mean VA showed the known systematic higher values of PHT220 and significantly decreased results when using CEVTI. This systematic difference between mean VA applying PHT220 versus CEVTI is approximately 1.0 cm(2) for all prosthetic sizes. Calculations via CEVpeak were close to the results of CEVTI. CEVmean produced values, which graphically correspond to the PHT220 curve. Only PHT220 detected the constructional equal prosthetic inner ring width between 29 and 31 mm. To compensate the systematic difference between CEVTI and PHT220, an optimized constant of 140 ms was calculated to be applied in PHT (PHT140). VA is a robust and, therefore, preferable parameter for investigating MP. If needed, both CE and PHT are applicable with a systematical difference between CEVTI and PHT220. An optimized constant of 140 ms (PHT140) should be applied when calculating VA of mitral valve prostheses via PHT.