Prediction of postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement

Is the threshold for postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch the same for all prostheses?

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 cm(2)/m(2). 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.

Mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with the 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve

BACKGROUND

When aortic valve replacement (AVR) is performed in patients with a small aortic annulus, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is of concern. We investigated the mid-term outcomes of AVR with a 17-mm mechanical prosthesis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients with aortic stenosis underwent AVR with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthesis. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at discharge, and at follow-up (mean follow-up, 33 months). Patients were divided into 2 groups: with and without PPM at discharge. Between-group differences in postoperative variables, particularly survival, were analyzed. Overall hospital mortality was 2.6%. Actuarial 1- and 5-year survival rates were 95% and 79%, respectively. Diabetes and renal insufficiency were associated with long-term mortality. Freedom from major adverse valve-related cardiac events at 1 year and 5 years was 97.3% and 93.9%, respectively. Diabetes was shown to be an independent risk factor for major adverse valve-related cardiac events. Echocardiography 13 months after AVR showed a significant increase in mean effective orifice area index, decrease in mean left ventricular-aortic pressure gradient, and decrease in mean left ventricular mass index. PPM at discharge did not influence long-term survival or left ventricular mass regression.

CONCLUSIONS

The 17-mm Regent prosthesis provided satisfactory clinical and hemodynamic results. It is a reliable choice for patients with a small aortic annulus.

Clinical outcomes and hemodynamics of the 19-mm Perimount Magna bioprosthesis in an aortic position: comparison with the 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic Ultra Valve

BACKGROUND

When aortic valve replacement is performed in patients with a small aortic annulus, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is of concern because it can affect postoperative clinical outcomes. Although larger bioprosthetic valves have been well studied, the hemodynamics of 19-mm bioprostheses have been reported in only a small number of patients. The effectiveness as well as the impact of PPM on outcomes are thus still unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Postoperative clinical and hemodynamic variables were compared in 67 patients with a 19-mm Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna bioprosthesis and in 10 patients with a 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic Ultra valve. Mean follow-up time was 13 months. There was no in-hospital mortality. Echocardiography 6.5±4.0 months after surgery showed significant decreases in the mean left ventricular (LV)-aortic pressure gradient, and decreases in the mean LV mass index. Reduction in LV mass index did not differ between the valve groups, despite a higher pressure gradient in the Mosaic group. Although PPM was detected in 21 patients in the Magna group, it did not affect regression of the LV mass index during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the 19-mm Magna bioprosthesis appears to provide satisfactory clinical results. LV-aortic pressure gradient was lower in the Magna group. The present data suggest that PPM is not related to reduction in the LV mass index.

Hemodynamics and Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement with a 17- or 19-mm Valve

When aortic valve replacement is performed in patients with a small aortic annulus, prosthesis-patient mismatch is of concern because it may affect postoperative clinical status. We conducted a retrospective study of outcomes in 65 patients with aortic stenosis requiring valve replacement. Fifty were given a 17-mm or 19-mm St. Jude Regent mechanical valve, and 15 were given a 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis. Echocardiography was carried out preoperatively, at discharge, and at follow-up. There was 1 (2%) operative death in the Regent group and none in the Mosaic group. There was no valve-related event. Follow-up echocardiography in both groups revealed a significant increase in the mean effective orifice area index, a decrease in the mean left ventricular-aortic pressure gradient, and a decrease in the mean left ventricular mass index. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (effective orifice area index <0.85 cm2 · m−2) existed in 13 (26%) patients in the Regent group and 11 (73%) in the Mosaic group at discharge. All patients improved to New York Heart Association functional class II or better. A small-sized prosthesis may provide satisfactory clinical and hemodynamic results in patients with a small aortic annulus.

The 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve is a valid option for patients with a small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

When aortic valve replacement is performed in patients with a small aortic annulus, prosthesis-patient mismatch is of concern. Such prosthesis-patient mismatch may affect postoperative clinical status and survival. We investigated the outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement performed with a 17-mm mechanical prosthesis in patients with aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with aortic stenosis (mean age, 74.6 +/- 6.3 years) underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthesis. Mean body surface area was 1.41 +/- 0.13 m(2). Preoperative echocardiography yielded a mean aortic valve area of 0.36 +/- 0.10 cm(2)/m(2), a mean left ventricular-aortic pressure gradient of 68.4 +/- 25.3 mm Hg, and a mean left ventricular mass index of 200 +/- 69 g/m(2).

RESULTS

There was no operative mortality, and there were no valve-related events. Echocardiography at 14.0 +/- 10.0 months after aortic valve replacement showed a significant increase in the mean effective orifice area index (0.95 +/- 0.24 cm(2)/m(2)), decrease in the mean left ventricular-aortic pressure gradient (17.4 +/- 8.2 mm Hg), and decrease in the mean left ventricular mass index (124 +/- 37 cm(2)/m(2)). Prosthesis-patient mismatch (effective orifice area index < 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) was present in 8 patients at discharge. In these patients as well as in those without prosthesis-patient mismatch, the left ventricular mass index decreased remarkably during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm Regent prosthesis appears to provide satisfactory clinical and hemodynamic results in patients with a small aortic annulus. Remarkable left ventricular mass regression during follow-up was achieved irrespective of the effective orifice area index at discharge.

Aortic root enlargement: what are the operative risks?

OBJECTIVE

Despite concern that small aortic valve prostheses can lead to prosthesis-patient mismatch with diminished left ventricular mass regression and poor long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement, there remains reluctance to perform aortic root enlargement procedures. We therefore examined the operative risks of aortic valve replacement with and without root enlargement.

METHODS

We reviewed perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement at our institution between January 1993 and December 2001. Risk factors for operative death were evaluated by means of multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Of 2366 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with (1173) or without (1193) concomitant procedures, 249 (10.5%) underwent posterior root enlargement. Patients undergoing complex root enlargement (Konno-Rastan procedures) were excluded. Patients undergoing aortic root enlargement were significantly younger, twice as often female, and more often undergoing a reoperation but were similar with respect to functional class. The mean valve implant size was less in the aortic root enlargement group (21.5 +/- 1.6 vs 23.2 +/- 2.3 mm, P < .0001). As expected, mean crossclamp time and bypass time were somewhat longer with root enlargement. Raw operative mortality was higher with aortic root enlargement (5.6% vs 2.9%, P = .0324); however, by means of multivariable analysis, advanced functional class (P = .0020; odds ratio, 1.87), preoperative congestive heart failure (P < .0001; odds ratio, 3.22), and smaller valve implant size (P = .012; odds ratio, 1.16), but not aortic root enlargement, were independent risk factors for operative death.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root enlargement itself does not increase operative risk, although it is most often required among high-risk patients. Surgeons should not be reluctant to enlarge the aortic root to permit implantation of adequately sized valve prostheses.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Small St Jude Medical Mechanical Prostheses in the Aortic Position

Background— The impact of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch (P-PtM) on long-term survival is unclear.

Methods and Results— Between 1985 and 2000, 388 patients at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn, underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with 19- or 21-mm St Jude Medical prostheses and had transthoracic echocardiography within 1 year after AVR. Mean age of patients was 62±13 years; 69% were female. Prosthesis effective orifice area (EOA) was derived from the continuity equation. P-PtM was classified as severe (indexed EOA ≤0.60 cm 2 /m 2 ), moderate (0.60 cm 2 /m 2 <indexed EOA≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 ), or not hemodynamically significant (indexed EOA >0.85 cm 2 /m 2 ). P-PtM was severe in 66 patients (17%), moderate in 168 (43%), and not hemodynamically significant in 154 (40%). Patients with severe P-PtM had a significantly larger body surface area ( P <0.0001), higher mean gradient ( P <0.0001), lower preoperative ( P <0.0001) and postoperative ( P <0.0001) ejection fractions, and lower stroke volume ( P <0.0001) and more often received a 19-mm prosthesis ( P =0.0008) than patients with moderate or no hemodynamically significant mismatch. For patients with severe mismatch, 5-year survival rates (72±6%) and 8-year survival rates (41±8%) were significantly less than for patients with moderate mismatch (80±3% and 65±5%; P =0.026) or no hemodynamically significant mismatch (85±3% and 74±5%; P =0.002). On multivariate analysis after adjustment for other predictors of outcome, severe mismatch was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratio 2.18; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 3.85; P =0.007) and higher incidence of congestive heart failure (hazard ratio 3.1; 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 7.4; P =0.009) than no hemodynamically significant mismatch.

Conclusions— Severe P-PtM is an independent predictor of higher long-term mortality and congestive heart failure in patients with small St Jude Medical aortic valve prostheses. For patients undergoing AVR who are at risk of severe mismatch, every effort should be made to use a larger prosthesis or to consider a prosthesis with a larger EOA.

Functional Results in Aortic Root Enlargement

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamically efficient valves with effective orifice areas that are used in aortic valve replacement have been positively determined to affect postoperative exercise capacity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional effects of aortic root enlargement in the late postoperative period for patients with a small effective orifice area.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with a small effective orifice area were included in the study. The study group comprised 9 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with 23-mm St. Jude Medical prosthetic valves and posterior aortic root enlargement. The control group comprised 10 patients in whom 19-mm and 21-mm St. Jude Medical prosthetic valves were implanted without aortic root enlargement. The patients were evaluated in the late postoperative period with echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were similar in anthropometric parameter values, follow-up periods, echocardiographic findings, and the gradients at the prosthetic aortic valve at rest; however, the anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake, minute ventilation volume, and walk time were significantly higher in the study group ( P <.05).

CONCLUSION

The choice of aortic root enlargement for the implantation of a valve with a larger effective orifice area is preferred by most of the surgeons over the implantation of a valve with a smaller effective orifice area. The late postoperative functional capacity of the patient is significantly improved with root enlargement. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform root enlargement in patients with a small effective orifice area, and such surgery may even be performed routinely in these patients.

Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch

BACKGROUND

We routinely use aortic root enlargement (ARE) as part of one strategy to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with relatively small aortic roots who are undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 657 consecutive stented AVR patients at a single institution between 1995 to 2001. Of these, 114 (17%) patients underwent ARE. Root enlargement was selectively performed in patients at risk for prosthesis-patient mismatch, defined as calculated projected indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) less than 0.85 cm2/m2. This involved extension of the aortotomy between the left and noncoronary cusps, valve implantation, and Dacron patch closure of the aorta, thus permitting replacement with a valve size appropriate to body surface area.

RESULTS

The mean age of ARE patients was 72.5 +/- 11.0 years, with 32% aged 80 years or more. Of the patients, 61% were female and 27% had undergone previous cardiac operations. Combined procedures included coronary bypass in 57 patients and mitral repair or replacement in 24. The prevalence of mismatch was less than 3%. The ARE required an average of 19 minutes of additional aortic clamp time. The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Logistic regression showed perfusion time to be the only independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that ARE can be performed readily and with minimal added risk relative to standard AVR. We also present a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch predicted at time of operation from the reference value of effective orifice area for a given prosthesis and the patient's size. This includes use of ARE to enhance the potential benefit of AVR.

Maximal Workload and Oxygen Uptake during Exercise after Aortic-Valve Replacement

Context:

It is more feasible to assess functional capacity with an exercise test than to measure peak-exercise VO2.

Objective:

To assess whether maximal workload reliably predicts peak VO2.

Patients:

Thirty-six patients after aortic-valve replacement during routine follow-up.

Design:

Incremental symptom-limited cycle exercise test in the upright position with increments of 20 W/min.

Setting:

Out-clinic patients, university hospital.

Main Outcome Measures:

Maximal workload, ventilatory threshold, and peak VO2.

Results:

Maximal workload was 151 ± 39 W, and peak VO2, 1649 ± 486 ml/min. The correlation coefficient between maximal workload and peak VO2wasr= .92 (P< .0001). The regression equation for the estimation of peak VO2wasy= 11.7 (maximal workload in watts) – 110.7. Peak VO2calculated with this equation was 1657 ± 451 ml/min.

Conclusions:

Maximal workload during ergometry in the upright position reliably predicted peak VO2.

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with a small mechanical prosthetic valve

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it is recognized that the use of small prosthetic valves due to a small aortic root often affects postoperative course after AVR. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of small prosthetic valves was a risk factor of AVR for AS.

METHODS

We compared various perioperative factors and operative outcomes between patients with a small mechanical prosthetic valve (small group) and patients with a large mechanical prosthetic valve (large group).

RESULTS

Early mortality was 0% in each group and the 5-year mortality was 25% in the small group and 10% in the large group. There were no significant differences in perioperative factors between the two groups. The small group patients were significantly older and smaller compared to the large group patients. The valve size was significantly correlated with age and BSA.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of small mechanical prostheses was not a risk factor of AVR for AS when it was proportionate to the BSA even for elderly patients. AVR using a small mechanical prosthetic valve may be performed with good results in the short- and long-term.

Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is less than that of a normal human valve. This is a frequent problem in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and its main hemodynamic consequence is the generation of high transvalvular gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. The purposes of this report are to present an update on the concept of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch and to review the present knowledge with regard to its impact on hemodynamic status, functional capacity, morbidity and mortality. Also, we propose a simple approach for the prevention and clinical management of this phenomenon because it can be largely avoided if certain simple factors are taken into consideration before the operation.

Postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement by small-size prosthesis: functional consequence of small-size aortic prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine whether a small-size valve prosthesis contributes to exercise intolerance, as assessed by VO2 measurement during an exhaustive cycle ergometer exercise.

BACKGROUND

The determinants of exercise capacity after mechanical aortic replacement are not well known. The selection of small valve sizes has, however, been described as an independent predictor of exercise intolerance as assessed by exercise duration. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a good index of exercise tolerance.

METHODS

Fourteen patients were eligible, with a mean age of 62 +/- 6 years. Before surgery, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 73 +/- 8%. Two valve types with small diameter (19 to 21 mm) were used: Medtronic Hall and St Jude Medical. A healthy sedentary control group (n = 14) paired for age, weight and size was constituted. After one year of follow-up, cardiorespiratory tests were performed. In addition, the gradients through the prostheses were determined by continuous pulse Doppler at rest and immediately after the cardiorespiratory test. RESULTS The exercise tolerance was not significantly different between the control group and patient group: VO2 peak (21.7 vs. 20.4 ml/kg/min; p = 0.42), workloads (115 vs. 93 W; p = 0.13) and ventilatory parameters were similar. The mean and peak gradients at rest and during exercise were not correlated with VO2max.

CONCLUSIONS

Valve replacement by small aortic prosthesis does not seem to be a factor of exercise intolerance as assessed by VO2max in patients without LVEF dysfunction before surgery.

Long-Term Follow-Up and Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography of 19-mm Prosthetic Heart Valves

BACKGROUND: In patients with a small aortic root, the use of 19-mm valve prostheses for valve replacement is controversial because of the small orifice area of these valves. METHODS: To assess stress hemodynamics in patients with 19-mm valve prostheses, to find predictors of unfavorable hemodynamics, and to document the long-term follow-up, we examined 30 patients (age, 64 +/- 19 years; 27 women and 3 men; follow-up, 38 +/- 50 months) clinically and with the use of dobutamine stress echocardiography. A history was taken, and a physical examination was performed. At rest and during dobutamine stress, Doppler echocardiography was performed. RESULTS: At rest, transprosthetic gradients were moderately elevated with mean and peak gradients of 15 +/- 7 and 32 +/- 14 mmHg, and effective orifice areas were small (0.91 +/- 0.31 cm(2)). Gradients rose markedly during stress (mean, 37 +/- 14 mmHg; peak, 83 +/- 41 mmHg). Predictors of high transprosthetic gradients were larger body surface area, younger age, and valve type. Mean and peak gradients were lower with St. Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus valves than with standard St. Jude Medical (P < 0.05) and other valves, and the effective orifice area was highest (1.07 +/- 0.29 cm(2); P < 0.05 versus standard St. Jude Medical) in this valve model. Sixty percent of patients developed significant dynamic subvalvular or intraventricular gradients (84 +/- 41 mmHg) during dobutamine stress. CONCLUSIONS: After aortic valve replacement with 19-mm prostheses in patients with a small aortic root, dobutamine stress leads to high transvalvular gradients, which are dependent on valve model, age, and body surface area. In addition, 60% of patients develop significant dynamic outflow obstructions. These findings and the persistence of some degree of exercise-induced symptoms in 70% of patients suggest that alternative surgical techniques should be considered if the size of the aortic annulus demands a 19-mm valve, especially if the patient seeks physical activity, is young, or is of larger body size.

Aortic stenosis. Clinical evaluation and optimal timing of surgery

Aortic valve disease is common in the elderly with recent data suggesting that aortic sclerosis and stenosis are the end-stage of an active disease process. Aortic atenosis may be diagnosed at symptom onset (angina, heart failure or syncope) but often the diagnosis is suspected in an asymptomatic patient with a systolic murmur. The diagnosis can be confirmed and disease severity evaluated reliably using Doppler echocardiography. Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is treated with valve replacement, even in the elderly, due to the extremely poor prognosis without relief of outflow obstruction. Management is controversial when there is coexisting moderate aortic stenosis and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.