Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2016 > Volume 25 Number 5 September 2016 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Prevalence and Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Pure Aortic Regurgitation

Prevalence and Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Pure Aortic Regurgitation

Vincent Auffret1, Pierre Voisine1, Alexandre Cinq-Mars3, Éric Charbonneau1, Florent Le Ven1, Sacha-Michelle Dubois-Sénéchal3, Eduardo Brenna2, François Dagenais1, Michelle Dubois3, Carine Ridard1, Mario Sénéchal2,4

1Deparrtment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
2Department of Cardiology, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
3Research Center, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
4Electronic correspondence: mario.senechal@criucpq.ulaval.ca

Background and aim of the study: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is highly prevalent among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) to treat aortic stenosis. Data regarding the prevalence and impact of PPM on left ventricular remodeling and outcomes in patients who have undergone surgical AVR to treat pure severe aortic regurgitation (AR) are, however, scarce.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of clinical and echocardiographic data acquired from 50 consecutive patients with pure severe AR, without evidence of significant coronary artery disease, who underwent AVR between 2004 and 2010 at the authors’ institution. PPM was defined as a projected in vivo effective orifice area (EOA) 0.85 cm2/m2.

Results: The incidence of PPM was 16%, but no severe mismatch occurred. At a mean follow up of 52 ± 39 months, event-free survival (a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for cardiovascular causes)

 

was similar between patients with and without PPM (p = 0.73). Within seven days after surgery, mean reductions in indexed left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and indexed left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) were similar between patients with and without PPM [4.4 mm/m2 versus 5.0 mm/m2; p = 0.67 and 1.6 mm/m2 versus 2.2 mm/m2; p = 0.35, respectively]. At follow up, no difference was observed for mean reductions in indexed LVEDD and indexed LVESD [6.9 mm/m2 versus 7.1 mm/m2; p = 0.91 and 4.1 mm/m2 versus 5.1 mm/m2; p = 0.57, respectively], and mean improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (4.4% versus 5.1%; p = 0.87).

Conclusion: PPM occurs less frequently in patients undergoing AVR for pure severe AR than for aortic stenosis, and seems to have a less significant impact on ventricular remodeling and outcomes.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2016;25:543-551


Prevalence and Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Pure Aortic Regurgitation

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.