Literature DB >> 14502155

Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement.

Eugene H Blackstone1, Delos M Cosgrove, W R Eric Jamieson, Nancy J Birkmeyer, John H Lemmer, D Craig Miller, Eric G Butchart, Giulio Rizzoli, Magdi Yacoub, Akiko Chai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to quantify the relationship between prosthesis size adjusted for patient size (prosthesis-patient size) and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: Data from nine representative sources on 13,258 aortic valve replacements provided 69,780 patient-years of follow-up (mean 5.3 +/- 4.7 years), with reliable survival estimates to 15 years. Prostheses included 5757 stented porcine xenografts, 3198 stented bovine pericardial xenografts, 3583 mechanical valves, and 720 allografts. Manufacturers' labeled prosthesis size was 19 mm or smaller in 1109 patients. Expressions of prosthesis-patient size assessed were indexed internal prosthesis orifice area (in centimeters squared per square meter of body surface area) and standardized internal prosthesis orifice size (Z, the number of SDs from mean normal native aortic valve size). Multivariable hazard domain analysis with balancing score and risk factor adjustment quantified the association of prosthesis-patient size with survival.
RESULTS: Prosthesis-patient size down to at least 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not adversely affect intermediate- or long-term survival (P >.2). However, 30-day mortality increased 1% to 2% when indexed orifice area fell below 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) (P =.002) or standardized orifice size fell below -2.5 Z (P =.0003). The increased early risk affected fewer than 1% of patients receiving bioprostheses but about 25% of those receiving mechanical devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Aortic prosthesis-patient size down to 1.1 cm(2)/m(2) or -3 Z did not reduce intermediate- or long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. However, patient-prosthesis size under 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or -2.5 Z was associated with a 1% to 2% increase in 30-day mortality. Prosthesis-patient sizes this small or smaller were rarely implanted in patients receiving bioprostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14502155     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(03)00591-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  18 in total

Review 1.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention.

Authors:  P Pibarot; J G Dumesnil
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-10-26       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Prevention of valve prosthesis--patient mismatch before aortic valve replacement: does it matter and is it feasible?

Authors:  Philippe Pibarot; Jean G Dumesnil
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Joanna Chikwe; Farzan Filsoufi; Alain F Carpentier
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 32.419

4.  Multicentre, propensity-matched study to evaluate long-term impact of implantation technique in isolated aortic valve replacement on mortality and incidence of redo surgery.

Authors:  Yama Haqzad; Mahmoud Loubani; Mubarak Chaudhry; Priyadharshanan Ariyaratnam; Norman Briffa
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-02-17

5.  Factors affecting survival after mitral valve replacement in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Authors:  Abdulhameed Aziz; Jennifer S Lawton; Hersh S Maniar; Michael K Pasque; Ralph J Damiano; Marc R Moon
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Patient-prosthesis mismatch in the mitral position affects midterm survival and functional status.

Authors:  Denis Bouchard; Frédéric Vanden Eynden; Philippe Demers; Louis P Perrault; Michel Carrier; Raymond Cartier; Arsène J Basmadjian; Michel Pellerin
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 5.223

7.  Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future?

Authors:  Malakh Shrestha; Ilona Maeding; Klaus Höffler; Nurbol Koigeldiyev; Georg Marsch; Thierry Siemeni; Felix Fleissner; Axel Haverich
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-07-12

8.  Small prosthesis size in aortic valve replacement does not affect mortality.

Authors:  Damien J LaPar; Gorav Ailawadi; Castigliano M Bhamidipati; George Stukenborg; Ivan K Crosby; John A Kern; Irving L Kron
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 9.  Update on aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch in Japan.

Authors:  Yoshimasa Sakamoto; Kazuhiro Hashimoto
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-04-13

10.  Is the threshold for postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch the same for all prostheses?

Authors:  Homare Okamura; Atsushi Yamaguchi; Hideki Morita; Kazuhiro Naito; Koichi Yuri; Hideo Adachi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 2.549

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.