Incidence and Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery

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.

Aortic Annulus Enlargement: Early and Long-Terms Results

AIM:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a common occurrence in aortic valve surgery. Even the discussions about the impact of this phenomenon on the results of aortic valve surgery, the management of this problem remain one of the main topics in this kind of surgery. One of the ways of a solution is aortic annulus enlargement. The main topic of this study is to evaluate the early and longterm results of this technique in our country.

METHODS:

During the period January 2010 –January 2015, 641 patients performed aortic valve surgery. In ten patients we performed aortic annulus enlargement according to Manouguian technique to avoid severe patient-prothesis mismatch. Operative mortality and perioperative complications (low cardiac output, pulmonary complications, etc..) were considered the indicators of the early results. Survival, clinical presentation according to NYHA, quality of life were the indicators to evaluate long-term results. Preoperative and postoperative echocardiographic data were also used to evaluate our results. We collected the data from hospital registrations and periodical clinical visit and echographic examination after hospital discharge.

RESULTS:

In our group, 6 of 10 patients were diagnosed with stenotic aortic valve, two patients had aortic valve regurgitation and two mixed valve pathology. Four patients had concomitant cardiac surgery procedure, mitral or CABG. In all cases, aortic valve pathology was the primary diagnose. In the preoperative echocardiographic examination mean transvalvular gradient was 54.3 ± 6.42. We had no death during early or late postoperative period. Only one patient had pulmonary complications and long time of respiratory assistance because of his pulmonary pathology. The same patient had low cardiac output and wound infection. Early after surgery mean transprostethic gradient was 16.2 ± 3.44 and late postoperative was 15.9 ± 4.3. No patient had the severe patient-prothesis mismatch. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 20.26 months. During follow-up, we had no death, and all patients had very good quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS:

Aortic valve annulus enlargement can be used with very good early and late results with the final goal to increase the potential benefit of the patient from surgery of aortic valve.