Abstract
Purpose
The effective orifice area index (EOAI) is used to define the prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, few studies have so far evaluated whether the cutoff value for PPM varies across prostheses. This study assessed the hemodynamics in patients given a mechanical valve and then re-evaluated the validity of the commonly accepted threshold.
Methods
The subjects included 329 patients that underwent AVR with a St. Jude Medical Regent valve. The transvalvular pressure gradient and EOAI were determined echocardiographically, and the commonly accepted threshold was analyzed in relation to survival.
Results
The mechanical valves very often yielded a postoperative transvalvular pressure gradient >10 mmHg, and thus, clinically significant residual pressure, regardless of the EOAI. The slope of the curve describing the relationship between the transvalvular pressure gradient and EOAI was gentler than that reported for bioprosthetic valves, for which the pressure gradient rises sharply at EOAI <0.85 cm2/m2. The commonly defined PPM did not affect the long-term survival or regression of the left ventricular mass index.
Conclusions
The relationship between the transvalvular pressure gradient and the EOAI in patients given a mechanical prosthesis differed from the reference standard. These data suggest the need to reconsider the appropriate cutoff value for PPM in relation to different prostheses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Hirooka K, Kawazoe K, Kosakai Y, Sasako Y, Eishi K, Kito Y, et al. Prediction of postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1626–30.
Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Métras J, Durand LG. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity, and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:211–8.
Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–8.
Kratz JM, Sade RM, Crawford FA Jr, Crumbley AJ 3rd, Stroud MR. The risk of small St. Jude aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57:1114–8.
Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, Mathieu P, Dagenais F, Voisine P, 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.
Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Munfakh NA, Pasque MK, Damiano RJ Jr. POINT: prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:278–83.
Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:963–74.
Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WR, Birkmeyer NJ, Lemmer JH Jr, Miller DC, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:783–96.
González-Juanatey JR, Garcia-Acuña JM, Vega Fernandez M, Amaro Cendón A, Castelo Fuentes V, García-Bengoechea JB, et al. Influence of the size of aortic valve prostheses on hemodynamics and change in left ventricular mass: implications for the surgical management of aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;112:273–80.
Sawant D, Singh AK, Feng WC, Bert AA, Rotenberg F. St. Jude Medical cardiac valves in small aortic roots: follow-up to sixteen years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;113:499–509.
Fries R, Wendler O, Schieffer H, Schäfers HJ. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:817–22.
Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992;6(Suppl 1):S34–7.
Sakamoto Y, Yoshitake M, Naganuma H, Kawada N, Kinouchi K, Hashimoto K. Reconsideration of patient-prosthesis mismatch definition from the valve indexed effective orifice area. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1951–5.
Dalmau MJ, Maríagonzález-Santos J, López-Rodríguez J, Bueno M, Arribas A, Nieto F. One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6:345–9.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Okamura, H., Yamaguchi, A., Morita, H. et al. Is the threshold for postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch the same for all prostheses?. Surg Today 43, 871–876 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0311-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0311-9