Literature DB >> 10585038

Patient-prosthesis mismatch is negligible with modern small-size aortic valve prostheses.

M B Izzat1, I Kadir, B Reeves, P Wilde, A J Bryan, G D Angelini.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised about residual significant gradients when small aortic prostheses are used, particularly in patients with large body surface areas. We studied the performance of six types of small aortic prostheses using dobutamine stress echocardiography.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients (mean age, 67 +/- 7 years) who had undergone aortic valve replacement 17 +/- 6 months previously were studied. Two bileaflet mechanical prostheses (St. Jude Medical and CarboMedics: sizes, 19 mm and 21 mm) and two biological prostheses (Medtronic Intact and St. Jude BioImplant: size, 21 mm) were evaluated. A graded infusion of dobutamine was given and Doppler studies of valve performance were carried out.
RESULTS: All prostheses except one biological valve had acceptable hemodynamic performance under stress. Using regression modeling, gradient at rest was the only variable found to predict gradient under stress (p < 0.001). Moreover, the most important predictor of gradient at rest was valve design, which accounted for 72% of the variance (p < 0.001). This relationship was independent of valve size (19 mm or 21 mm) or material (ie, mechanical or biological). Body surface area accounted for 4% of the variance in gradient only.
CONCLUSIONS: The main predictor of transprosthetic gradient is the inherent characteristics of each particular prosthesis, with relatively insignificant contribution from variations in body surface area. Patient-prosthesis mismatch is not a problem of clinical significance when certain modern valve prostheses are used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10585038     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00717-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  6 in total

1.  Aortic valve replacement with a 16-mm CarboMedics valve in adult patients.

Authors:  Takeru Shimomura; Tadahito Eda; Shuichi Suzuki; Ken Miyahara; Akio Matsuura; Katsuhiko Yoshida
Journal:  Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2006-06

2.  Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in the elderly: influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on late survival and left ventricular mass regression.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Kato; Yasushi Tsutsumi; Takahiro Kawai; Tomoyuki Goto; Yosuke Takahashi; Hirokazu Ohashi
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2008-08-13

3.  Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Contemporary Small-Size Mechanical Prostheses Does Not Impact Survival at 10 Years.

Authors:  Horea Feier; Mihaela Mocan; Andrei Grigorescu; Lucian Falnita; Marian Gaspar; Constantin-Tudor Luca
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2022-01-31

4.  Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis.

Authors:  Horea Feier; Andrei Grigorescu; Lucian Falnita; Oana Rachita; Marian Gaspar; Constantin T Luca
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis.

Authors:  Edvin Prifti; Massimo Bonacchi; Fadil Ademaj; Gabriele Giunti; Giampiero Esposito; Arben Baboci; Gani Bajraktari; Altin Veshti; Aurel Demiraj; Vittorio Vanini
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 1.637

6.  Early outcomes of patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Serik Aitaliyev; Egle Rumbinaitė; Karolina Mėlinytė-Ankudavičė; Rokas Nekrošius; Vytenis Keturakis; Rimantas Benetis
Journal:  Perfusion       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 1.581

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.