Effect of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival With Aortic Valve Replacement: Assessment to 15 Years

Abstract

The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement has received considerable attention but there remains controversy. This study was performed to determine the predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival. Contemporary mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses were implanted in 3,343 patients with aortic valve replacement between 1982 and 2003. The mean age was 68.06 +/- 11.20 years (median 70.06; range, 19 to 94), and the mean follow-up was 6.18 +/- 4.96 years, for a total of 20,666 years of follow-up. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was classified by effective orifice area index categories: normal (> 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)), 1,547 (46.3%); mild-to-moderate (> 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) to < or = 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)), 1,584 (47.4%); and severe (< 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)), 212 (6.3%). The predictors of overall mortality were age, age categorization, New York Heart Association functional class III/IV, concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prosthesis type, preoperative congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All categories of effective orifice area indexes were not predictive of overall mortality, late mortality, or early mortality. The 15-year overall survival was differentiated by effective orifice area index categories: 38.1% +/- 2.1%, 37.0% +/- 2.2%, and 22.1% +/- 6.5%, respectively, for the three categories. Survival adjusted for the covariates (effective orifice area index, age, basal mass index, and ejection fraction) determined no effect except severe effective orifice area index when adjusted for ejection fraction more than 50% (p = 0.049). Prosthesis-patient mismatch is not a predictor of overall standard unadjusted mortality to 15 years after aortic valve replacement, regardless of the category of effective orifice area index.