Literature DB >> 33060963

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

Abid Iqbal1, Varghese Thomas Panicker1, Jayakumar Karunakaran1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: 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. AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: 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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. OBSERVATIONS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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. © Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve surgery; Patient prosthesis mismatch; Prosthesis

Year:  2018        PMID: 33060963      PMCID: PMC7525878          DOI: 10.1007/s12055-018-0706-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0970-9134


  35 in total

1.  Patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Neil J Howell; Bruce E Keogh; Vivien Barnet; Robert S Bonser; Timothy R Graham; Stephen J Rooney; Ian C Wilson; Domenico Pagano
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 2.  Predictors and Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Victor Dayan; Gustavo Vignolo; Gerardo Soca; Juan Jose Paganini; Daniel Brusich; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-05-25

3.  Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important?

Authors:  B Medalion; E H Blackstone; B W Lytle; J White; J H Arnold; D M Cosgrove
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  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

5.  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.

Authors:  Marc Ruel; Hussam Al-Faleh; Alexander Kulik; Kwan L Chan; Thierry G Mesana; Ian G Burwash
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.209

6.  Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable?

Authors:  Rafael García Fuster; José A Montero Argudo; Oscar Gil Albarova; Fernando Hornero Sos; Sergio Cánovas López; María Bueno Codoñer; José A Buendía Miñano; Ignacio Rodríguez Albarran
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2004-12-25       Impact factor: 4.191

7.  Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients.

Authors:  J G Dumesnil; A P Yoganathan
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 8.  The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Authors:  S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction.

Authors:  Dania Mohty; Jean G Dumesnil; Najmeddine Echahidi; Patrick Mathieu; François Dagenais; Pierre Voisine; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-01-06       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Incidence and patterns of valvular heart disease in a tertiary care high-volume cardiac center: a single center experience.

Authors:  C N Manjunath; P Srinivas; K S Ravindranath; C Dhanalakshmi
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2014-04-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.