Literature DB >> 16678587

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression.

Marc Ruel1, Hussam Al-Faleh, Alexander Kulik, Kwan L Chan, Thierry G Mesana, Ian G Burwash.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on clinical outcome and left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement remains controversial. Data on whether the clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch depends on left ventricular function at the time of aortic valve replacement are lacking. This study examined the long-term clinical and echocardiographic effects of prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction at the time of aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: Preoperative and serial postoperative echocardiograms were performed in 805 adults who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1990 and 2003 and who were subsequently followed up in a dedicated valve clinic (follow-up, mean +/- SD, 5.5 +/- 3.5 years; maximum, 14.2 years). Preoperative left ventricular function was defined as normal (ejection fraction > or =50%) in 548 patients and impaired (ejection fraction <50%) in 257 patients.
RESULTS: Patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and prosthesis-patient mismatch (indexed effective orifice area < or =0.85 cm2/m2) had a decreased overall late survival (hazard ratio, 2.8; P = .03), decreased freedom from heart failure symptoms or heart failure death (odds ratio of 5.1 at 3 years after aortic valve replacement; P = .009), and diminished left ventricular mass regression compared with patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and no prosthesis-patient mismatch. These effects of prosthesis-patient mismatch were not observed in patients with normal preoperative left ventricular function.
CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis-patient mismatch at an indexed effective orifice area of 0.85 cm2/m2 or less after aortic valve replacement primarily affects patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and results in decreased survival, lower freedom from heart failure, and incomplete left ventricular mass regression. Patients with impaired left ventricular function represent a critical population in whom prosthesis-patient mismatch should be avoided at the time of aortic valve replacement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16678587     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.10.028

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


  30 in total

Review 1.  A 44-year experience of prosthetic heart valve implantation at Niigata University Hospital.

Authors:  Jun-ichi Hayashi
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 1.731

2.  Clinical value of regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Sayuri Yamabe; Yoshihiro Dohi; Akifumi Higashi; Hiroki Kinoshita; Yoshiharu Sada; Takayuki Hidaka; Satoshi Kurisu; Nobuo Shiode; Yasuki Kihara
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  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 4.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: an update.

Authors:  Jean G Dumesnil; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  Longitudinal strain predicts left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular function.

Authors:  Sandro Gelsomino; Fabiana Lucà; Orlando Parise; Roberto Lorusso; Carmelo Massimiliano Rao; Enrico Vizzardi; Gian Franco Gensini; Jos G Maessen
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 2.037

6.  Improvement of left ventricular longitudinal systolic function after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a speckle-tracking prospective study.

Authors:  Flavio D'Ascenzi; Matteo Cameli; Alessandro Iadanza; Matteo Lisi; Valerio Zacà; Rosanna Reccia; Valeria Curci; Andrea Torrisi; Giuseppe Sinicropi; Carlo Pierli; Sergio Mondillo
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 2.357

7.  Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch?

Authors:  Erik Beckmann; Andreas Martens; Firas Alhadi; Klaus Hoeffler; Julia Umminger; Tim Kaufeld; Samir Sarikouch; Nurbol Koigeldiev; Serghei Cebotari; Jan Dieter Schmitto; Axel Haverich; Malakh Shrestha
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-02-25

8.  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

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

Review 10.  Low-gradient aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Marie-Annick Clavel; Julien Magne; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.