Advertisement

Prosthesis patient mismatch: myth or reality?

  • Amber MalhotraEmail author
Invited Editorial
  • 8 Downloads

The term prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) coined by Rahimtoola in 1978 has become a religion of sorts [1]. There are believers and non-believers, but many, if not most, of the surgeons are on either side for reasons other than scientific evidence. Iqbal et al. have given some insights into this complex problem [2].

By the current definition of PPM, effective orifice area indexed (EOAI) ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2 is severe and 0.65–0.85cm2/m2 is moderate PPM. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database shows that up to two thirds of the patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) seem to be affected by PPM [3]. In the past, for many years, the valve manufacturers were quoting internal geometric area (IGA) which was a measurement of valve area based on the internal diameter of the prosthesis. IGA, however, grossly overestimates the actual in vivo orifice area and hence does not correlate with the transvalvar pressure gradient (TPG). Effective orifice area (EOA) is derived by the formula...

Notes

Financial support

This work was supported by U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center itself and received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. 1.
    Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iqbal A, Panicker VT, Karunakaran J. Patient prosthesis mismatch and its impact on left ventricular regression following aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-018-0706-3.
  3. 3.
    Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM, et al. The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dayan V, Vignolo G, Soca G, Paganini JJ, Brusich D, Pibarot P. Predictors and outcomes of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:924–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao V, Jamieson WRE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesis–patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement (abstr). Circulation. 2000 ;102:Iii-5-Iii-9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vincentelli A, Susen S, Le Tourneau T, et al. Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:343–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li M, Dumesnil JG, Mathieu P, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1034–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elkins RC, Lane MM, McCue C. Ross operation in children: late results. J Heart Valve Dis. 2001;10:736–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alsoufi B, Manlhiot C, Al-Ahmadi M, et al. Outcomes and associated risk factors for mitral valve replacement in children. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:543–51.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamaguchi M, Ohashi H, Imai M, Oshima Y, Hosokawa Y. Bilateral enlargement of the aortic valve ring for valve replacement in children. New operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1991;102:202–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, Nakajima M, Tatsuno K. A new method for prosthetic valve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of the aortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70:909–17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. New operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979;78:402–12.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanter KR, Kogon BE, Kirshbom PM. Supra-annular mitral valve replacement in children. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:2221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takagi H, Umemoto T. Prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:872–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Little SH, Oh JK, Gillam L, et al. Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in patients at high risk for surgery: a study of echocardiographic change and risk prediction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9:pii:e003426.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003426.
  17. 17.
    Clavel MA, Webb JG, Rodés-Cabau J, et al. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation. 2010;122:1928–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardio vascular and Thoracic Surgery, U. N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research CenterCivil Hospital CampusAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations