Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

  • Invited Review Article
  • Published:
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 21 January 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), first described in 1978, occurs when a prosthetic valve functions normally, but has an effective orifice area that is too small relative to the patient’s body surface area. It results in residual left ventricular afterload and higher transvalvular pressure gradient, which has been considered to impair prognosis. PPM following surgical aortic replacement is reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as high mortality. However, the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear. There is conflicting evidence on the impact of PPM following TAVI due to differences across studies in terms of follow-up period, methods, patient populations, and type of bioprosthetic valve. The present review summarizes the most recent evidence on PPM after TAVI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bilkhu R, Jahangiri M, Otto CM. Patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement. Heart. 2019;105(Suppl 2):s28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, Pibarot P, Mack MJ, Takkenberg JJ, 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 27186 patients with 133141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, Yakubov SJ, Coselli JS, Deeb GM, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, Mumtaz M, Gada H, O’Hair D, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1706–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1695–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoganathan AP, Cape EG, Sung HW, Williams FP, Jimoh A. Review of hydrodynamic principles for the cardiologist: applications to the study of blood flow and jets by imaging techniques. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:1344–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. de Simone G, Devereux RB, Daniels SR, Mureddu G, Roman MJ, Kimball TR, et al. Stroke volume and cardiac output in normotensive children and adults. Assessment of relations with body size and impact of overweight. Circulation. 1997;95:1837–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leone PP, Fazzari F, Cannata F, Sanz-Sanchez J, Mangieri A, Monti L, et al. Clinical and technical challenges of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 670457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC, Nazif T, Hahn RT, Pibarot P, et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:2717–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh M, Sethi A, Mishra AK, Subrayappa NK, Stapleton DD, Pellikka PA. Echocardiographic imaging challenges in obesity: guideline recommendations and limitations of adjusting to body size. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9: e014609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Catalano MA, Rutkin B, Koss E, Maurer G, Berg J, Hartman A, et al. Accuracy of predicted effective orifice area in determining incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2021;36:191–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ternacle J, Abbas AE, Pibarot P. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: has it become obsolete? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:977–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ternacle J, Guimaraes L, Vincent F, Côté N, Côté M, Lachance D, et al. Reclassification of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using predicted vs. measured indexed effective orifice area. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;22:11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ternacle J, Pibarot P, Herrmann HC, Kodali S, Leipsic J, Blanke P, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch After aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1466–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hahn RT, Leipsic J, Douglas PS, Jaber WA, Weissman NJ, Pibarot P, et al. Comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of normal transcatheter valve function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bach DS. Echo/Doppler evaluation of hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement: principles of interrogation and evaluation of high gradients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:296–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fukui M, Garcia S, Lesser JR, Gössl M, Tang L, Caye D, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch defined by cardiac computed tomography versus echocardiography after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2021;15:403–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mooney J, Sellers SL, Blanke P, Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Dvir D, et al. CT-defined prosthesis-patient mismatch downgrades frequency and severity, and demonstrates no association with adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1578–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Holy EW, Nguyen-Kim TDL, Hoffelner L, Stocker D, Stadler T, Stähli BE, et al. Multimodality imaging derived energy loss index and outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21:1092–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch, 1978 to 2011: from original concept to compelling evidence. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1136–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miyasaka M, Yoon SH, Sharma RP, Maeno Y, Jaideep S, Taguri M, et al. Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with extremely large annulus and SAPIEN 3 dimensions based on post-procedural computed tomography. Circ J. 2019;83:672–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kawamori H, Yoon SH, Chakravarty T, Maeno Y, Kashif M, Israr S, et al. Computed tomography characteristics of the aortic valve and the geometry of SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19:1408–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kawaguchi T, Yamaji K, Ishizu K, Morinaga T, Hayashi M, Isotani A, et al. Effect of postdilatation following balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:E630–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Miyasaka M, Tada N, Taguri M, Kato S, Enta Y, Hata M, et al. Incidence and predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after TAVI using SAPIEN 3 in Asian: differences between the newer and older balloon-expandable valve. Open Heart. 2021;8:e001531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Miyasaka M, Tada N, Taguri M, Kato S, Enta Y, Otomo T, et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Asian patients: the OCEAN-TAVI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:771–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kazuno Y, Maeno Y, Kawamori H, Takahashi N, Abramowitz Y, Babak H, et al. Comparison of SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve stent-frame expansion: evaluation using multi-slice computed tomography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1054–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hahn RT, Pibarot P, Leipsic J, Blanke P, Douglas PS, Weissman NJ, et al. The effect of post-dilatation on outcomes in the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1710–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nomura T, Miyasaka M, Nakashima M, Saigan M, Inoue A, Enta Y, et al. Delivery balloon volume positively correlates with the diameter and effective orifice area of implanted SAPIEN 3. J Cardiol. 2022.

  33. Abbas AE, Mando R, Kadri A, Khalili H, Hanzel G, Shannon F, et al. Comparison of transvalvular aortic mean gradients obtained by intraprocedural echocardiography and invasive measurement in balloon and self-expanding transcatheter valves. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10: e021014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hatoum H, Hahn RT, Lilly S, Dasi LP. Differences in pressure recovery between balloon expandable and self-expandable transcatheter aortic valves. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020;48:860–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hatoum H, Yousefi A, Lilly S, Maureira P, Crestanello J, Dasi LP. An in vitro evaluation of turbulence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156:1837–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:589–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Okuno T, Pilgrim T, Heg D, Stortecky S, Praz F, Windecker S, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch based on energy loss index after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:2584–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bahlmann E, Gerdts E, Cramariuc D, Gohlke-Baerwolf C, Nienaber CA, Wachtell K, et al. Prognostic value of energy loss index in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2013;127:1149–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM, O’Brien S, Thibault DP, DiScipio AW, et al. The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Gentile F, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint Committee on Clinical Practice guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143:e35–71.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Takagi H, Umemoto T, ALICE (All-Literature Investigation of Cardiovascular Evidence) Group. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:872–880.

  42. Pibarot P, Salaun E, Dahou A, Avenatti E, Guzzetti E, Annabi MS, et al. Echocardiographic results of transcatheter Versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: the PARTNER 3 trial. Circulation. 2020;141:1527–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schofer N, Deuschl F, Rübsamen N, Skibowski J, Seiffert M, Voigtländer L, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: prevalence and prognostic impact with respect to baseline left ventricular function. EuroIntervention. 2019;14:1648–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim SH, Kim HJ, Kim JB, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Chung CH, et al. Supra-annular versus intra-annular prostheses in aortic valve replacement: impact on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28:58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lanz J, Kim WK, Walther T, Burgdorf C, Möllmann H, Linke A, et al. Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1619–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Okuno T, Khan F, Asami M, Praz F, Heg D, Winkel MG, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular and intra-annular prostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:2173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Abdelghani M, Mankerious N, Allali A, Landt M, Kaur J, Sulimov DS, et al. Bioprosthetic valve performance After transcatheter aortic valve replacement With self-expanding Versus balloon-expandable valves in Large Versus Small aortic valve annuli: insights From the CHOICE trial and the CHOICE-extend registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:2507–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Regazzoli D, Chiarito M, Cannata F, Pagnesi M, Miura M, Ziviello F, et al. Transcatheter self-expandable valve implantation for aortic stenosis in small aortic annuli: the TAVI-SMALL registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, Pasic M, Waksman R, Kodali S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312:162–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bapat VN, Attia R, Thomas M. Effect of valve design on the stent internal diameter of a bioprosthetic valve: a concept of true internal diameter and its implications for the valve-in-valve procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:115–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Herrmann HC, Daneshvar SA, Fonarow GC, Stebbins A, Vemulapalli S, Desai ND, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2701–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tang GHL, Sengupta A, Alexis SL, Bapat VN, Adams DH, Sharma SK, et al. Outcomes of prosthesis-patient mismatch following supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:964–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, Hahn RT, Lindman BR, McAndrew T, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort—a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1323–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bakhtiary F, Schiemann M, Dzemali O, Dogan S, Schächinger V, Ackermann H, et al. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch and aortic valve design on coronary flow reserve after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:790–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Bédard P, Hendry PJ, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:149–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Flameng W, Herregods MC, Vercalsteren M, Herijgers P, Bogaerts K, Meuris B. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010;121:2123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Flameng W, Rega F, Vercalsteren M, Herijgers P, Meuris B. Antimineralization treatment and patient-prosthesis mismatch are major determinants of the onset and incidence of structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1219–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sá MPBO, de Carvalho MMB, Sobral Filho DC, Cavalcanti LRP, Rayol SDC, Diniz RGS, et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement and patient-prosthesis mismatch: a meta-analysis of 108 182 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56:44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, Melby SJ, Lawton JS, Moazami N, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:481–488 (discussion 9).

  63. Mohty D, Boulogne C, Magne J, Pibarot P, Echahidi N, Cornu E, et al. Prevalence and long-term outcome of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with paradoxical low-flow severe aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2014;130(Suppl 1):S25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Abbas AE, Ternacle J, Pibarot P, Xu K, Alu M, Rogers E, et al. Impact of flow on prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;14: e012364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. He S, Fang Z. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Med (Baltim). 2020;99: e20717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen YH, Chang HH, Kuo CC, Leu HB, Lin SM. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Asian patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021.

  67. Zorn GL 3rd, Little SH, Tadros P, Deeb GM, Gleason TG, Heiser J, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a randomized trial of a self-expanding prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1014–22):1023.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Deeb GM, Chetcuti SJ, Yakubov SJ, Patel HJ, Grossman PM, Kleiman NS, et al. Impact of annular size on outcomes after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1129–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rodés-Cabau J, Pibarot P, Suri RM, Kodali S, Thourani VH, Szeto WY, et al. Impact of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:701–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ewe SH, Muratori M, Delgado V, Pepi M, Tamborini G, Fusini L, et al. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1910–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pibarot P, Ternacle J, Jaber WA, Salaun E, Dahou A, Asch FM, et al. Structural deterioration of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve bioprostheses in the PARTNER-2 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1830–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Compagnone M, Marchetti G, Taglieri N, Ghetti G, Bruno AG, Orzalkiewicz M, et al. Long-term outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Int J Cardiol. 2020;318:27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Park H, Ahn JM, Kang DY, Kim JB, Yeung AC, Nishi T, et al. Racial differences in the incidence and impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:2670–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Stamou SC, Chen K, James TM, Rothenberg M, Kapila A, Faber C, et al. Predictors and outcomes of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2020;35:360–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Theron A, Pinto J, Grisoli D, Griffiths K, Salaun E, Jaussaud N, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in new generation trans-catheter heart valves: a propensity score analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19:225–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Hernandez-Suarez DF, Ranka S, Villablanca P, Yordan-Lopez N, González-Sepúlveda L, Wiley J, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s national inpatient sample. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20:546–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Alkhouli M, Holmes DR Jr, Carroll JD, Li Z, Inohara T, Kosinski AS, et al. Racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of TAVR: TVT registry report. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:936–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Vincent F, Ternacle J, Denimal T, Shen M, Redfors B, Delhaye C, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Circulation. 2021;143:1043–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Barbanti M, Yang TH, Rodès Cabau J, Tamburino C, Wood DA, Jilaihawi H, et al. Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2013;128:244–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Blanke P, Reinöhl J, Schlensak C, Siepe M, Pache G, Euringer W, et al. Prosthesis oversizing in balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with contained rupture of the aortic root. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:540–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Maeno Y, Abramowitz Y, Jilaihawi H, Israr S, Yoon S, Sharma RP, et al. Optimal sizing for SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with or without left ventricular outflow tract calcification. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:e2177–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Brinkmann C, Abdel-Wahab M, Bedogni F, Bhadra OD, Charbonnier G, Conradi L, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture: predictors of outcome and follow-up. Results from a multicenter study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98:756–64.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sathananthan J, Sellers S, Barlow AM, Stanová V, Fraser R, Toggweiler S, et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve fracture comparing different transcatheter heart valve designs: an ex vivo bench study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Saxon JT, Cohen DJ, Nguyen TC, Webb J, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture: technical insights from a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158:1317-1328.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Saxon JT, Allen KB, Cohen DJ, Chhatriwalla AK. Bioprosthetic valve fracture during valve-in-valve TAVR: bench to bedside. Interv Cardiol. 2018;13:20–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Mumtaz MA. Hemodynamic outcomes and predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: results from the Evolut low-risk trial. TVT 2019 presentation. https://www.tctmd.com/slide/hemodynamic-outcomes-and-predictors-prosthesis-patient-mismatch-after-transcatheter-or. Accessed 3 Apr 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21K20920.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Masaki Miyasaka

  2. Cardiovascular Center, Sendai Kosei Hospital, Miyagi, Japan

    Masaki Miyasaka & Norio Tada

Authors
  1. Masaki Miyasaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norio Tada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the OCEAN-SHD family

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masaki Miyasaka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Japan, which were not for this review article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to the author group and affiliation of first author were published incorrectly. The author group and affiliation have been corrected.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miyasaka, M., Tada, N. & on behalf of the OCEAN-SHD family. Prosthesis–patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Cardiovasc Interv and Ther 37, 615–625 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-022-00865-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-022-00865-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation