The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement varies according to age at operation

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.

Intermediate Follow-Up of Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Small Aortic Annuli

The clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in patients with small aortic annuli who underwent transcatheter aortic valve (AV) implantation with either balloon-expandable (BE) or self-expanding (SE) valves remains controversial. We assessed in-hospital and intermediate clinical outcomes in 573 patients with transfemoral transcatheter AV implantation with a small AV annulus, defined as an AV annulus area ≤430 mm². A total of 337 patients treated with a 23-mm BE valve (SAPIEN 3, Ultra) were compared with 236 patients treated with a 26-mm SE valve (Evolut series). Valve-in-valve cases were excluded, and late echo follow-up (mean 674 ± 438 days) was assessed in a subset of 292 patients (51.0%). Well-matched BE and SE cohorts did not differ with respect to major in-hospital outcomes, other than a borderline increase in vascular complications and composite bleeding in patients with SE. Patients with BE had a higher incidence of severe PPM on discharge echocardiography (16.9% vs 6.8%, p <0.002). The mean AV gradient at 30 days was higher for patients with BE (12.2 ± 4.2 vs 6.2 ± 7.9 mm Hg, p <0.001) and at late follow-up (14.0 ± 8.2 vs 7.2 ± 3.5 mm Hg, p <0.001). The follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction and incidence of >mild aortic insufficiency were similar. All-cause mortality for the 2 cohorts was similar, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 61.2 months (57.8 to 64.5; p = 0.98). There were no significant survival differences between combined patients with BE and SE with no, moderate, or severe PPM, with an overall mean (95% confidence interval) survival time of 32.5 (30.5 to 34.5) months combining valve types (p = 0.23). In conclusion, despite an increased incidence of PPM with higher mean AV gradients that persist on late echocardiography in the BE cohort, patients with BE and SE with small aortic annuli have similar clinical outcomes at intermediate follow-up. Moderate and severe PPM had no impact on survival at a mean follow-up of 32.5 months.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.

Aortic closure signal length on doppler echocardiography differentiates aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch from prosthetic stenosis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic potential of the aortic closure (A2) signal length on Doppler echocardiography in distinguishing aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) from prosthetic stenosis among patients with elevated gradients over bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

The A2 signal length was retrospectively measured for 150 patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves (50 with PPM, 50 with prosthetic stenosis, and 50 with normally functioning valves) from transthoracic echocardiograms performed at NYU Langone Health between 01/01/2012 and 08/01/2018.

RESULTS

Mean A2 signal length was shorter among patients with PPM (11.1 ms ± 5.2 ms), than among those with prosthetic stenosis (21.1 ms ± 6.0 ms), P < .001 and controls (21.7 ms ± 7.4 ms), P < .001. There was no difference in A2 signal length between prosthetic stenosis and controls. The A2 signal length yielded an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.95) for predicting PPM over prosthetic stenosis.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves, the length of the A2 signal on Doppler echocardiography is shorter in PPM than in prosthetic stenosis and normally functioning valves. The A2 signal length may represent a novel metric to distinguish PPM from prosthetic stenosis.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

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.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of PPM after MVR on the late survival using propensity score matching analysis. From 2007 to 2018, 660 consecutive MVRs were performed. Effective orifice areas were obtained from a literature review of in vivo echocardiographic data, and mitral PPM was defined as an effective orifice area index of ≤1.2 cm²/m². Propensity score matching yielded a cohort of 126 patients with PPM and 126 patients without PPM. Mitral PPM was found in 37.8% of the patients. In the whole matched patients, there were no differences in late survival (log-rank test, P = 0.629) between 2 groups. Patients aged ≤70 years and those aged >70 years had no differences in late survival (log-rank test, P = 0.073 and 0.572). The Cox proportional hazards model for the overall survival showed that mitral PPM tended to decrease survival in patients aged ≤70 years (P = 0.084, hazard ratio [HR] 2.647, 95% CI: 0.876-7.994). Mitral PPM did not adversely affect long-term survival. There may be a tendency of adverse impact on late survival in patients aged ≤70 years. Implanting a safe size rather than larger size prosthesis in mitral position may be an appropriate option in older patients.

Perceval or Trifecta to Prevent Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch

The Trifecta aortic valve has excellent hemodynamics characteristics. Moreover, the Perceval prosthesis may achieve better hemodynamics than the conventional valves; therefore, it has been proposed to reduce the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of this complication between both prostheses. All patients who underwent valve replacement with a Perceval or a Trifecta from 2016 to 2020 at our institution were included. We calculated the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch for each prosthesis and size and performed a multinomial logistic regression model to investigate the impact of choosing one prosthesis over the other. A total of 516 patients were analyzed. Moderate mismatch was present in 33 (8.6%) in the Trifecta group and 28 (21.4%) in the Perceval group, p < 0.001. Severe mismatch was present in 8 (2.1%) patients with Trifecta and 5 (3.8%) patients with Perceval, p = 0.33. Compared with the Perceval, the Trifecta prosthesis was shown to reduce moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02). Both prostheses led to a similar risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.8, p = 0.79). Both prostheses provide a very low risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. Compared with the Perceval prothesis, the Trifecta prosthesis is able to reduce by 50% the risk of moderate mismatch.

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.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus valve system

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an acceptable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients who are intermediate to high risk for surgery. The Lotus^™ valve system (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) is an unique, mechanically expanded device. The system includes a braided nitinol frame and an adaptive seal to minimize paravalvular regurgitation. REPRISE III illustrated that among high-risk patients the use of the Lotus valve compared with a self-expanding valve did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. Future investigation of the Lotus valve system includes the use in low to intermediate risk patients with aortic stenosis as well as those with bicuspid aortic valves and mitral annular calcification.

Surgery for Young Adults With Aortic Valve Disease not Amenable to Repair

Aortic valve replacement is the gold standard for the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis or mixed pathology that is not amenable to repair according to currently available guidelines. Such a simplified approach may be suitable for many patients, but it is far from ideal for young adults considering emerging evidence demonstrating that conventional valve replacement in this cohort of patients is associated with inferior long-term survival when compared to the general population. Moreover; the utilisation of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves can significantly impact on quality and is linked to increased rates of morbidities. Other available options such as stentless valve, homografts, valve reconstruction and Ross operation can be an appealing alternative to conventional valve replacement. Young patients should be fully informed about all the options available - shared decision making is now part of modern informed consent. This can be achieved when referring physicians have a better understanding of the short and long term outcomes associated with every intervention, in terms of survival and quality of life. This review presents up to date evidence for available surgical options for young adults with aortic stenosis and mixed disease not amenable to repair.

Incidence, Predictors and Outcome of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, predictors and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A total of 30 articles incorporating 4,691 patients were identified. The pooled incidences of overall, moderate and severe PPM following TAVR were 33.0%, 25.0% and 11.0% respectively. Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) had lower incidence of overall (32% vs: 40%, P < 0.0001) and moderate (23% vs 32%, P < 0.0001) than Edwards Sapien (ESV). PPM was associated with a younger age, smaller annulus diameter and lower left ventricular ejection fraction in comparison with those patients without PPM. Post-dilation (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68, p < 0.001) during TAVR would decrease the incidence of PPM. Although PPM was common after TAVR, no significant differences were observed both in short- and mid-term all-cause mortality (30 day: OR: 1.1, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.73 and 2 year: OR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.38) between patients with PPM and those without PPM. In conclusion, despite being common after TAVR, the incidence of PPM was lower than that of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and decreased with the experience accumulating, and PPM was not seen to impact on short- and mid-term survival, regardless of its magnitude.

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.

Aortic Valve Replacement With Carpentier-Edwards: Hemodynamic Outcomes for the 19-mm Valve

BACKGROUND

To compare hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis versus larger valves.

METHODS

Between January 1998 and December 2013, 447 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (n = 61) or Magna bioprostheses (n = 386). Based on the implanted valve size, the patients were classified into three groups: a 19-mm group (n = 54), a 21-mm group (n = 154), and a 23-mm to 27-mm group (n = 239). The in vivo effective orifice area index was measured by transthoracic echocardiography 12 months after operation (n = 331). The mean follow-up time was 4.9 ± 3.5 (maximum 15.4) years.

RESULTS

There were three early deaths (0.7%). At 10 years, overall survival (84.1%) was unaffected by patient-prosthesis mismatch (18.7%, 62 patients), and freedom from structural valve deterioration and endocarditis was 100% and 97.1%, respectively. Although the 19-mm group was significantly older and had a higher incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (n = 14, 30.4%), there were no significant differences in early outcomes, overall survival, cardiac-related mortality, or serial reduction of left ventricular mass index in comparison with patients with a larger bioprostheses. Independent risk factors for all-cause mortality were age, male gender, combined coronary artery bypass graft, and low hemoglobin level.

CONCLUSION

The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis appears to be associated with acceptable clinical outcomes and hemodynamic profile.

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.

Clinical Impact of Changes in Left Ventricular Function After Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis From 3112 Patients

BACKGROUND

Our objectives were to identify correlates of mortality and congestive heart failure after aortic valve replacement (AVR) according to preoperative left ventricular (LV) function and to describe the incidence, time course, and correlates of LV recovery and mass regression postoperatively.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 3112 patients with AVR were assessed in a follow-up clinic with echocardiography (median follow-up, 6.0 years). At operation, their mean age was 67.8±13.4 years, one third were female, and 29% had LV dysfunction (ejection fraction <50%). In severe patients with severe aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction, transaortic valve mean pressure gradient <40 mm Hg, longer cardiopulmonary bypass duration, and prosthesis-patient mismatch (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) were independent correlates of the composite outcome of death or congestive heart failure after AVR. In patients with severe aortic regurgitation and LV dysfunction, older age and higher preoperative LV mass were identified. LV recovery correlated with better survival and freedom from heart failure in patients with aortic stenosis. Maximum LV mass regression took 24 months in patients with aortic stenosis and nearly 5 years with aortic regurgitation; independent correlates included smaller LV end-systolic diameter in patients with aortic stenosis and low New York Heart Association class with aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Incomplete LV recovery, prosthesis-patient mismatch, low transaortic valve pressure gradient, and higher LV mass are associated with increased mortality or heart failure after AVR in patients with LV dysfunction. Higher LV end-systolic diameter and symptoms correlate with less LV mass regression, which takes at least 2 years. These findings help surgeons and cardiologists refine the indications, timing, prognostication, and follow-up of patients before and after AVR.