Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with mechanic aortic valve replacement: Which method is better: In vitro or in vivo measurement?

Patient-prosthesis mismatch is usually accepted to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study aims to evaluate prevalence, sensitivity and specificity of mismatch measured with in vivo and in vitro methods, look for a relationship between mismatch and obesity, and investigate the effect of mismatch on left ventricle mass index (LVMI) regression and mortality. A total of 72 consecutive patients who underwent mechanical AVR between December 2011 and May 2013, were prospectively evaluated. EOA was measured with echocardiography in all patients on the 6th postoperative month and an Indexed Effective Orifice Area (EOA) ≤0.85cm2 /m2 was accepted as mismatch with the in vivo measurement method. For the in vitro measurement method, charts provided by the valve manufacturers were used for EOA prediction. LVMI was also evaluated on the 6th and 12th postoperative months. Postoperative follow-up is 100% complete with 68.5±14.4 months. In vivo and in vitro mismatch prevalences were 43.5% and 25.0% with slight concordance (kappa=0.172). Sensitivity of in vitro measurements was poor (35.7%), but specificity was 80.5%. LVMI regressions were significant with both mismatch methods (p0.05 in both). In vitro EOA measurements have a poor sensitivity to predict mismatch preoperatively. Left ventricular mass regressions were significant in all groups with no difference in early and late mortality.

___

1. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58:20-4.

2. Amorim PA, Diab M, Walther M, et al. Limitations in the assessment of prosthesis-patient mismatch. ([Epub ahead of print]) Thorac Cardiovasc Surg .January 4, 2019

3. Dayan V, Vignolo G, Soca G, et al. Predictors and outcomes of prosthesispatient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:924-33.

4. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, et al. Impact of the improvement of valve area achieved with aortic valve replacement on the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1291-6.

5. Wang B, Yang H, Zhu W, et al. Obesity is associated with higher long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement with small prosthesis. Heart Lung Circ. 2013;22:731-7.

6. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131-41.

7. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:975-1014; quiz 1082-4.

8. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the american society of echocardiography’s guidelines and standards committee and the chamber quantification writing group, developed in conjunction with the european association of echocardiography, a branch of the european society of cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18:1440-63.

9. House CM, Nelson WB, Kroshus TJ, et al. Manufacturer-provided effective orifice area index charts and the prevention of prosthesis-patient mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21:107-11.

10. Daneshvar SA, Rahimtoola SH. Valve Prosthesis–Patient Mismatch (VP–PM) A long-term perspective JACC. 2012;60:1123–35.

11. Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I, et al. Prediction of valve prosthesispatient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart. 2007;93:615-20.

12. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022-9.

13. Kohsaka S, Mohan S, Virani S, et al. Prosthesis- patient mismatch affects longterm survival after mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:1076-80.

14. Guo L, Zheng J, Chen L, et al. Impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on short-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement: a retrospective analysis in East China. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;12:42.

15. Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement:influence of age, obesity and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:39-47.

16. Collis T, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Relations of stroke volume and cardiac output to body composition: The Strong Heart Study. Circulation. 2001;103:820-5.

17. Vural KM. Pitfalls in interpreting the patient-prosthesis mismatch outcome. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:503-4.

18. Villa E, Troise G, Cirillo M, et al. Factors affecting left ventricular remodeling after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. An overview. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2006;4:25.

19. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, et al. Mass regression in aortic stenosis after valve replacement with small size pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:1107-13.

20. Vicchio M, De Santo LS, Della Corte A, et al. Aortic valve replacement with 19-mm bileaflet prostheses in the elderly: left ventricular massregression and quality of life. J Heart Valve Dis. 2008;17:216-21.

21. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, et al. Impact of the improvement of valve area achieved with aortic valve replacement on the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with pure aortic stenosis . Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1291-6.

22. Urso S, Sadaba R, Aldamiz-Echevarria G. Is patient-prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9:510-8.

23. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patient with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518-29.

24. Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement:ıs there a benefit? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:94-100.

25. Garatti A, Mori F, Innocente F, et al. Aortic valve replacement with 17-mm mechanical prosthesis:Is patient-prosthesis mismatch a relevant phenomenon? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:71-7.

26. Yılmaz BE, Karacalılar M, Ersoy B, Onan B. Comparison of patient-prothesis mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Turk Gogus Kalp Dama. 2019;27:143-51.

27. Howell NJ, Keogh BE, Ray D, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement does not affect survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:60-4.

28. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, et al. Impact of prosthesis patient mismatch on short term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983- 8.

29. Wang R, Chen X, Xu M, et al. Clinical Research of Aortic Valve Replacement in Small Aortic Annulus. Chinese J Surg. 2014;52:131-4
Medicine Science-Cover
  • ISSN: 2147-0634
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2012
  • Yayıncı: Effect Publishing Agency ( EPA )