Incidence Of Prosthesis-patient Mismatch Research Articles

Figure of eight suture technique in aortic valve replacement decreases prosthesis-patient mismatch

BackgroundWhile the pledget suture technique has been the standard for surgical aortic. valve replacement (AVR), discussion continues regarding the possibility of the nonpledget suture technique to produce superior structural and hemodynamic parameters. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the figure-of-eight suture technique in AVR, as determined by the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM).MethodsWe reviewed records of patients (N = 629) who underwent a surgical AVR procedure between January 2011 and July 2018 at a single institution. Indexed effective orifice area values and PPM incidence were calculated from implanted valve size and patient body surface area. Incidence of none, moderate, and severe PPM was compared across AVR suture techniques.ResultsA total of 570 pledget and 59 figure-of-eight patients were compared for incidence of PPM. Patients who received AVR with the pledget suture technique had significantly lower echocardiographic measurements of baseline ejection fraction than patients who had received AVR with the figure-of-eight suture technique (p = 0.003). Patients who received the figure-of eight suture had a 14% decrease in moderate PPM compared to patients who received the pledget suture (p = 0.022). Patients who received the figure-of-eight suture also had a significantly higher rate of no PPM (p = 0.044).ConclusionsThe use of the figure-of-eight suture technique in AVR can reduce the incidence of moderate PPM. While the pledget suture is the standard technique in AVR, the figure-of-eight suture technique may offer better structural and hemodynamic outcomes, especially for patients with a smaller aortic annulus.

Хирургическое лечение клапанного аортального стеноза в сочетании с узким корнем аорты. Место задней аортопластики у взрослых. Обзор потребности в этой операции, техник ее выполнения и нашего опыта

Aim: to describe the current state of the problem of surgical expansion of the aortic root during aortic valve replacement. Aortic valve replacement is a radical operation aimed at reducing the symptoms of chronic heart failure, reducing left ventricular overload, regressing its hypertrophy, and thereby increasing the quality and life expectancy of the patient. For the greatest success of the operation, the replacement should be made with the appropriate valve size suitable for the particular patient. Materials and methods. The latest literature data on the place of surgical expansion of the aortic root in the problem of treating aortic stenosis were studied. The own experience of these operations during the implantation of mechanical and biological prostheses in the aortic position in the practice of the cardiosurgical department of the Belgorod Regional Clinical Hospital is presented. Results. The study is devoted to the actual problem of choosing the right size of the prosthesis, the frequency of additional surgical procedures for its placement. Many studies have established an association between prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and surgical outcome. The association of prosthesis-patient mismatch with long-term survival is inverse, although sometimes reported as ambiguous. We reviewed the literature and our experience with the surgical management of narrow aortic root situations to determine the incidence of PPM and the need for an additional surgical procedure of posterior aortoplasty to accommodate the appropriate size of the prosthesis. The results of modern meta-analyses, multicenter studies and limited series of operations presented in the literature are reviewed. The experience of the cardiosurgical department of the Belgorod Regional Clinical Hospital for the period 01.01.2015-30.04.2023 in aortic valve replacement with a small size of the aortic ring (17-20 mm) is presented. The study material consisted of 303 patients. As prosthesis-patient mismatch, we defined all cases of posterior aortoplasty with implantation of an appropriately sized aortic prosthesis. According to modern studies, the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement without aortic root plasty is 11-33%. The frequency of posterior aortoplasty in adults is, according to different authors, 5-40%. Our experience has shown that the situation of PPM, which required aortic plasty, occurred in 14.8% of cases of implantation of stented biological prostheses, in 17.3% of cases of implantation of mechanical bicuspid prostheses. In general, on average, aortic plasty was performed in 15.8% of cases. Prosthetic-patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement occurs at a relatively constant rate. Posterior aortoplasty allows implanting the calculated size of the prosthesis and avoiding this problem. Conclusion. Surgery to patch the aortic root to accommodate an adequately sized prosthesis in the aortic position is required in 15-30% of patients with narrow aortic annulus. It allows you to get good hemodynamic results. The surgical risk of the operation is low.

Incidence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Valve-in-Valve with a Supra-Annular Valve.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for a degenerated surgical bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve [ViV]) has become an established procedure. Elevated gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) have previously been reported in mixed TAVR cohorts. We analyzed our single-center experience using the third-generation self-expanding Medtronic Evolut R prosthesis, with an emphasis on the incidence and outcomes of PPM. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from our TAVR database. Intraprocedural and intrahospital outcomes are reported. Eighty-six patients underwent ViV-TAVR with the Evolut R prosthesis. Mean age was 75.5 ± 9.5 years, 64% were males. The mean log EuroScore was 21.6 ± 15.7%. The mean time between initial surgical valve implantation and ViV-TAVR was 8.8 ± 3.2 years. The mean true internal diameter of the implanted surgical valves was 20.9 ± 2.2 mm. Post-AVR, 60% had no PPM, 34% had moderate PPM, and 6% had severe PPM. After ViV-TAVR, 33% had no PPM, 29% had moderate, and 39% had severe PPM. After implantation, the mean transvalvular gradient was reduced significantly from 36.4 ± 15.2 to 15.5 ± 9.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001). No patient had more than mild aortic regurgitation after ViV-TAVR. No conversion to surgery was necessary. Estimated Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year for all patients was 87.4%. One-year survival showed no significant difference according to post-ViV PPM groups (p = 0.356). ViV-TAVR using a supra-annular valve resulted in low procedural and in-hospital complication rates. However, moderate or severe PPM was common, with no influence on short-term survival. PPM may not be a suitable factor to predict survival after ViV-TAVR.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

BackgroundLittle is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding valves in an Asian population. We aimed to assess postprocedural effective orifice area with standardized methods and the impact of PPM on midterm outcomes after CoreValve or Evolut R (Medtronic) implantation in an Asian population. MethodsAmong 201 consecutive patients undergoing CoreValve or Evolut R implantation, PPM was assessed at 30 days and defined based on core laboratory measured indexed effective orifice area as severe (less than 0.65 cm2/m2) or moderate (0.65 to 0.85 cm2/m2). Multivariable regression models were utilized to examine predictors of PPM as well as mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure at midterm follow-up. ResultsModerate and severe PPM were observed after self-expanding valves in 37 patients (18.4%) and 3 patients (1.5%), respectively. These 40 patients were included in the PPM group. Predictors of PPM included female sex, larger body surface area, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. At midterm (median 30.4 months; interquartile range, 17 to 57.8) follow-up, patients with PPM had an increased risk of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 3.53; P = .027), cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 10.99; P = .043), and rehospitalization for heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 5.17; P = .025). ConclusionsPatient-prosthesis mismatch was associated with higher midterm mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure in an Asian population. The expected postprocedural effective orifice area for any given valve size may be helpful in preprocedural decision making to avoid PPM.

English

BACKGROUND Valve replacement has become the mainstay of management for rheumatic heart diseases. However, an important and frequent complication of valve replacement is patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM). The present study was undertaken to evaluate a single institution experience on the clinical pattern and presentation of PPM, and the outcomes of double valve replacement surgery. METHODS This retrospective, regional study was carried out among 316 consecutive patients who underwent concomitant aortic and mitral valve surgery (with or without tricuspid annuloplasty) in this tertiary care hospital. Particulars regarding the clinical profile and procedure details (valve types and sizes and priority of surgery) of these patients were documented from the medical records. RESULTS In this institute, the valves used were predominantly mechanical (92.6 %) when compared to bioprosthesis in 7.4 % (47/632 valves - 23 mitral position and 24 in aortic position). The most common sizes used in the aortic and mitral position were 21 mm &amp; 27 mm respectively. In spite of the seemingly lower sizes used in the patients undergoing double valve replacement (DVR) the incidence of PPM is less owing to the fact that the population under study had a lower body surface area (BSA) and body mass index (BMI) - 1.17 ± 0.3 &amp; 19.86 ± 3.9 respectively. CONCLUSIONS It may be emphasized that if the valve size required to be implanted is derived based on the patient’s BSA and indexed effective orifice area, the incidence of patient prosthesis mismatch can be minimized drastically and with it the in-hospital mortality and morbidity. KEYWORDS Aortic Stenosis, Double Valve Replacement, Mitral Valve, Prosthesis, Rheumatic Heart Disease

Can Moderate Patient Prosthesis Mismatch Be Tolerated in a Selected Group of Patients with Aortic Valve Replacement?

In this study, we aimed to determine the incidence of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and its effects on ejection fraction (EF), gradients, and late survival. 200 patients who underwent isolated mechanical AVR between March 2013 and May 2016 were retrospectively evaluated based on patient records. 200 patients were included in the study. No PPM was detected in 42 (21%) patients, moderate PPM in 122 (61%), and severe PPM in 36 (18%) patients. A significant decrease was found in all groups in terms of mean valve gradients and LVMI (preoperative LVMI compared with postoperative LVMI at the 12th month) (P < .001). A 30% decrease in mean LVMI in the no PPM and moderate PPM groups and a 20% decrease in the severe PPM group were detected at the 6th month. In our postoperative data, we found that EF was preserved, the transvalvular gradient reduced, and LVMI decreased. There was no difference in mortality rates between the control (no PPM) group and the moderate PPM group. Taking into account our patient groups, we can say that no-to-moderate PPM has no major effect on left ventricular remodeling in patients with preserved left ventricular functions.

Small Cavity of Left Ventricle Does Not Affect Short-term Outcome in Patients with Rheumatic Mitral Valve Stenosis Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement.

Small cavity left ventricle (SCLV) may affect the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR). This study aims to investigate the incidence of SCLV in patients with rheumatic mitral valve stenosis undergoing MVR and analyze its effect on short-term patient outcomes. We retrospectively examined all consecutive patients with isolated or concomitant MVR for rheumatic mitral valve stenosis in our center from 2013 to 2018. SCLV was defined as end-diastolic volume index ≤ 50 ml/m2. After inclusion and exclusion, a total of 1,437 patients were analyzed. The baseline information was collected and compared between SCLV and non-SCLV patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of SCLV on early mortality. A total of 1,437 patients were included in the study. SCLV was detected in 13.57% of the patients. Compared with the non-SCLV group, patients with SCLV were smaller-sized and primarily female. There were no significant differences between SCLV and non-SCLV patients regarding major postoperative complications, nor were there incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch. Logistic regression analysis showed that SCLV was not a risk factor for short-term mortality (P = 0.998). Our results demonstrated that SCLV was not associated with poorer early outcomes after MVR surgery in patients with rheumatic mitral valve stenosis.

Hemodynamic Performance of Pericardial Bioprostheses in the Aortic Position.

BackgroundThis study was conducted to evaluate the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial valves (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magana and Magna Ease).MethodsIn total, 216 patients (mean age, 70.0±10.5 years) who underwent AVR using stented bovine pericardial valves and had follow-up echocardiography between 3 months and 2 years (mean, 12.0±6.6 months) after surgery were enrolled. The implanted valve sizes were 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm in 32, 56, 99, and 29 patients, respectively.ResultsOn follow-up echocardiography, the mean transvalvular pressure gradients for the 19-mm, 21-mm, 23-mm, and 25-mm valves were 13.3±4.4, 12.6±4.2, 10.5±3.9, and 10.2± 3.7 mm Hg, respectively. The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.25±0.26, 1.54±0.31, 1.81±0.41, and 1.87±0.33 cm2, respectively. These values were smaller than those suggested by the manufacturer for the corresponding sizes. No patients had PPM, when based on the reference EOA. However, moderate (EOA index ≤0.85 cm2/m2) and severe (EOA index ≤0.65 cm2/m2) PPM was present in 56 patients (11.8%) and 9 patients (1.9%), respectively, when using the measured values.ConclusionCarpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease bovine pericardial valves showed satisfactory hemodynamic performance with low rates of PPM, although the reference EOA could overestimate the true EOA for individual patients.

Long-term clinical outcomes of the Toronto stentless porcine valve: 15-year results from dual centers.

The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term durability of the Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV) in the aortic position (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN). We assessed the long-term clinical outcomes of 515 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Toronto SPV from 1987 to 2001 at two centers, excluding early (<30 days) death. Median follow-up was 11.5 years (maximum 19.0 years). Average age was 64.2 ± 10.8 years, and females were 34% (173/515). The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch was low, 10.9%. Overall survival was 90.7 ± 1.3%, 75.4 ± 2.0%, and 56.8 ± 3.2% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectivelyafter surgery. Over the follow-up duration, 116 patients (23%) underwent repeated AVR: 90 for structural valve deterioration (SVD), 12 for endocarditis, 10 nonstructural valve dysfunction (10 aortic regurgitation due to aorta dilatation), and four for other reasons. The cumulative incidence of repeated AVR with death as a competing risk was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.7), 11.1% (95% CI, 8.4-14.2), and 34.4% (95% CI, 28.8-40.2) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Reoperative mortality was 5.2% (6/116). In SVD, the regurgitation type was dominant (82%). The Toronto SPV is associated with excellent survival and durability during the first decade of follow-up. However, regurgitation type of SVD increases from 10 years after operation with acceptable reoperative mortality. These findings may assist with prosthesis selection and reintervention strategy for failing stentless bioprosthesis.

Incidence and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after reoperative aortic valve replacement: a retrospective single-center study

BackgroundReoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with increased mortality compared with initial surgery, and a smaller valve might be implanted during repeat AVR (re-AVR; AVR after prior AVR). We describe the clinical outcomes and incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatches (PPM) after reoperative AVR.MethodsAmong 113 patients who underwent reoperative AVR between 2007 and 2018, 44 underwent re-AVR and 69 underwent a first replacement of a diseased natural valve after any cardiac surgery except AVR (primary AVR). We then compared early and late outcomes, the impact of re-AVR on the effective orifice areas (EOA), and the incidence and influence of PPM on reoperative AVR.ResultsHospital mortality was 2.7%, and the overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 95, 91 and 86%, respectively. The reference EOA of the newly implanted valve was smaller than that of the previous valve (1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, p < 0.01). The mean pressure gradient was greater (15.2 ± 6.4 vs. 12.7 ± 6.2 mmHg, p = 0.04) and indexed EOA was smaller (0.92 ± 0.26 vs. 1.06 ± 0.36 cm2/m2, p = 0.04) during re-AVR than primary AVR, whereas the incidence of PPM was similar (38.7% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.87) between the groups.ConclusionsThe clinical outcomes of reoperative AVR were acceptable. Although the reference EOA of new implanted valves was smaller than that of previous valves, re-AVR did not increase the incidence of PPM. These findings might serve as a guide for future decisions regarding the surgical approach to treating degenerated prosthetic valves.

TCT-756 Incidence of Patient Prosthesis Mismatch Following Native and Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Based on Indexed Aortic Valve Area Compared to Energy Loss Index

Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is defined as an indexed aortic valve area (AVAi) <0.65 cm2/m2. Its effect on clinical outcomes may be unfavorable following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, its incidence may be exaggerated when using AVAi, especially following valve-

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

ObjectiveThis study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on the risk of perioperative and long-term mortality after mitral valve replacement.MethodsDatabases were researched for studies published until December 2018. Main outcomes of interest were perioperative and 10-year mortality and echocardiographic parameters.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionProsthesis-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.

Impact of prosthesis‐iteration evolution and sizing practice on the incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

To investigate the impact of the introduction of the next generation self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) on the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PPM is a risk factor for accelerated degeneration of bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data on PPM after TAVR are derived mainly from studies of older generation THVs. PPM was assessed at 30 days post-TAVR with the older generation (Medtronic CoreValve, n = 120 and Edwards Sapien XT, n = 121) and the next generation THVs (Medtronic Evolut R/Pro, n = 136 and Edwards Sapien 3, n = 363). The incidence of any and severe PPM was 15.1% and 0.0% for the older generation THVs, and 42.8% and 12.1% for the next generation THVs. The incidence of moderate and severe PPM was 23.3% and 3.5% in patients who received an Evolut R/Pro vs. 33.1% and 14.7% in those who received a Sapien 3 (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, TAVR with the Sapien 3 THV was not associated with PPM, while left ventricular ejection fraction (0.97 [0.95-0.99], P = 0.002), history of myocardial infarction (2.09 [1.00-4.34], P = 0.049), annulus maximum diameter (0.84 [0.77-0.92], P < 0.001), and THV oversizing (0.90 [0.87-0.94], P < 0.001) were independently associated with PPM. In Sapien 3, the risk of any and severe PPM was higher in those with no oversizing (odds ratio: 3.25 [1.23-8.53], P = 0.017 and 5.79[2.33-14.36], P < 0.001). The incidence of PPM in contemporary TAVR is significant, especially with the next generation BE THV without adequate oversizing.

Patient prosthesis mismatch and its impact on left ventricular regression following aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients

Patient prosthesis mismatch is known to alter post-operative remodeling of left ventricle adversely in aortic stenosis patients. An indexed orifice area of 0.85 is considered as conventional cutoff for patient prosthesis mismatch based on hemodynamic principles. Many patients have smaller annulus and annulus enlargement techniques may be required to avoid this benchmark which complicates the surgery. To determine incidence of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in our population, to assess left ventricle (LV) regression and impact of indexed effective orifice area on LV regression, and to determine a minimum acceptable cut off indexed orifice area that will result in LV regression. A single-center retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement surgery for severe aortic stenosis between July 2015 and December 2015 was conducted. Patients who underwent concomitant revascularization or other valve surgery were excluded. Data regarding conventional risk factors for PPM, valve type, and indexed orifice area as well as pre-operative and late post-operative LV mass were collected. Thirty-seven of the 91 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. All patients had significant regression in LV mass. The incidence of PPM was 68%. Regression of indexed left ventricular mass showed a positive correlation of with indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. The correlation coefficient is + 0.48 (95% CI 0.18-0.698). Left ventricular mass regression was significantly higher in patients with indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (68.89 ± 29 vs 122.55 ± 58.84, p = 0.028). Relative left ventricular regression also was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (39.53 ± 13.13 vs 49.73 ± 15.56, p = 0.022). There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and the reduction in mean gradient achieved by valve replacement. The correlation coefficient was +0.35 (95% CI 0.03-0.61). The incidence of PPM was found to be comparable to literature. There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. Left ventricular regression was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective area more than 0.75. This can be considered as criteria for significant PPM in study population.

Late clinical outcomes after mechanical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: old versus new prostheses.

The study aimed to evaluate the late clinical outcomes of new-generation mechanical valves for severe aortic stenosis (AS) compared with old mechanical valves. We retrospectively reviewed data from 254 patients with severe AS, who underwent primary mechanical aortic valve replacement from 1995 to 2013. Patients were classified into two groups: old-valve group (n=65: 33 ATS standard, 32 Medtronic-Hall) and new-valve group (n=189: 113 St. Jude Regent, 46 On-X, 30 Sorin Overline). Median patient age was 58 years (Q1-Q3: 52-61). With propensity score matching based on demographic information, 56 patients in the old-valve group were matched with 177 patients in the new-valve group. The median follow-up duration was 91 months (Q1-Q3: 48-138). Cardiac-related mortality and hemorrhagic events were significantly lower in the new-valve group (P=0.047 and P=0.032, respectively). The median international normalized ratio (INR) at follow-up was significantly higher in the old-valve group [2.23, Q1-Q3: 2.14-2.35 (old-valve group); 2.08, Q1-Q3: 1.92-2.23 (new-valve group), P<0.001]. The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was significantly higher in the old-valve group (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis of the total population revealed that PPM was a significant risk factor for cardiac-related events [hazard ratio (HR) =5.279, 95% CI, 1.886-14.561, P=0.002] and showed higher trend of increasing mortality (HR =3.082, P=0.076). New mechanical prostheses showed a better hemodynamic performance and lower incidence of PPM. Anticoagulation strategy to lower the target INR in patients with new mechanical valves may improve late outcomes by reducing hemorrhagic events.

Impact of Annular Size on Outcomes After Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

This analysis evaluates the relationship of annular size to hemodynamics and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients. The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial, described previously, compared TAVR using a self-expanding valve with SAVR. Multislice computed tomography was used to categorize TAVR and SAVR subjects according to annular perimeter-derived diameter: large (≥26 mm), medium (23 to <26 mm), and small (<23 mm). Hemodynamics, PPM, and clinical outcomes were assessed. At all postprocedure visits, mean gradients were significantly lower for TAVR compared with SAVR in small and medium size annuli (p < 0.001). Annular size was significantly associated with mean gradient after SAVR, with small annuli having the highest gradients (p< 0.05 at all timepoints); gradients were similar across all annular sizes after TAVR. In subjects receiving SAVR, the frequency of PPM was significantly associated with annular size, with small annuli having the greatest incidence. No difference in PPM incidence by annular sizing was observed with TAVR. In addition, TAVR subjects had significantly less PPM than SAVR subjects in small and medium annuli (p < 0.001), with no difference in the incidence of PPM between TAVR and SAVR in large annuli (p= 0.10). Annular size has a significant effect on hemodynamics and the incidence of PPM in SAVR subjects, not observed in TAVR subjects. With respect to annular size, TAVR results in better hemodynamics and less PPM for annuli less than 26 mm and should be strongly considered when choosing a tissue valve for small and medium size annuli.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Anatomy: Patient Selection and Technical Challenges.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a standard treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Although this technique has reached relative maturity, further optimisation of patient selection and device implantation is essential to improve prognosis. Smaller body size is a predictor of a challenging TAVI procedure due to specific anatomical difficulty and adverse events including annulus rupture, acute coronary obstruction and vascular complications. A newer generation, lower profile TAVI system is useful for patients with smaller anatomy. Moreover, TAVI is superior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a narrowing annulus because this treatement has a low incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Early and Late Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement Using Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve in Elderly Patients: A Propensity Analysis

There is still controversy on the use of mechanical valves to treat elderly patients with a small aortic annulus who require aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared our results in elderly patients who underwent AVR with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve. Propensity matching adjusted for baseline differences in this study. Between January 2001 and July 2014, 277 patients aged ≥75 years old who underwent AVR were enrolled. Of 277 patients, 104 patients were selected using propensity score matching analysis. Out of this cohort, 52 patients underwent AVR with a bioprosthetic valve (B group) and the remainder AVR with a mechanical valve (M group). There were no significant differences between the B and M groups in 30 days mortality (1.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.618). The incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after AVR tended to be lower in the M group than in the B group. The overall survival rates in the B and M groups at eight years were 72.8% and 73.3%, respectively (p = 0.473). No significant differences between the two groups were observed in freedom from valve-related death, cardiac events, bleeding events, or stroke events. AVR in elderly patients achieved relatively good short-term and long-term outcomes, and the incidence rates of valve-related complications after using a mechanical valve were low. In a selected population of elderly patients, a mechanical valve may be acceptable. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12719 (J Card Surg 2016;31:195-202).

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

PurposeThe 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 MethodsWe 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 (EOACE) 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.ResultsPrevalence 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 EOACE 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).ConclusionPrevalence 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, EOACE was the only predictor of postoperative hemodynamic parameters.

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

AIM:The mains topics of this work are the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and the influence in the early results of isolated aortic valve surgery.METHODS:In 193 patients isolated aortic valve surgery was performed. The study population was divided in three subgroups: 20 patients with severe, 131 patients with moderate and 42 patients without patient-prosthesis mismatch. The indexed effective orifice area was used to define the subgroups. Operative mortality and perioperative complications were considered the indicators of the early results of aortic valve surgery.RESULTS:The incidence of severe and moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch was respectively 10.3% and 67.8%. Hospital mortality and perioperative complications were: mortality 5% vs. 3.1% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.855), low cardiac output 5% vs. 6.9% vs. 4.8% (p = 0.861); pulmonary complications 5% vs. 3.1 vs. 0.0% (p = 0.430); exploration for bleeding 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.319); atrial fibrillation 30% vs. 19.8% vs. 11.9% (p = 0.225); wound infection 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.00% (p = 0.165), respectively for the group with severe, moderate and without patient-prosthesis mismatch.CONCLUSIONS:Patient-prosthesis mismatch is a common occurrence in aortic valve surgery. This phenomenon does not affect the early results of aortic valve surgery.