Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement Does Not Affect Survival

Impact of Sex on Long-Term Outcomes Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

The impact of sex on outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains unclear. It has been proposed that females experience inferior outcomes, but this has yet to be conclusively established, particularly in the long term. The objective of this study is to identify discrepancies in postoperative outcomes between males and females following SAVR to better inform consideration for surgical intervention.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 4,927 patients who underwent SAVR from 2004 to 2018 at our centre. In total, 531 propensity-matched males and females were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at any point during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included various measures of postoperative morbidity. Follow-up duration was 15 years.

RESULTS

In SAVR all-comers, females experienced inferior short-term mortality, but equivalent mid-term and long-term mortality. Rates of mediastinal bleeding, sternal wound infections, sepsis, heart failure, and pacemaker insertion were all equivalent between the sexes; however, males experienced a higher rate of acute kidney injury and readmission for stroke at the longest follow-up while females experienced a longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. In a sub-analysis of isolated SAVR, males and females experienced equivalent early, mid, and late mortality. Of note, a trend towards increased aortic valve reoperation was noted in females at the longest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Males and females experience equivalent long-term mortality following isolated SAVR. Sex is not an independent risk factor of poor outcomes post-SAVR; however, the increased preoperative risk profile of females requires diligent consideration.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Population study of sex-based outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement

Background

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a key strategy for the treatment of aortic valve disease. However, studies have involved primarily male patients, and whether the benefits of this approach can be extrapolated to female patients is unclear.

Methods

Clinical and administrative datasets for 12,207 patients undergoing isolated SAVR in Ontario from 2008 to 2019 were linked. Male and female patients were balanced using inverse probability treatment weighting. Mortality, endocarditis, and major hemorrhagic and thrombotic events, as well as 2 composite outcomes-major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (MACCE) and patient-derived adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events (PACE)-and their component events, were compared in the weighted groups with a stratified log-rank test.

Results

A total of 7485 male patients and 4722 female patients were included in the study. Median follow-up was 5.2 years in both sexes. All-cause mortality did not differ between sexes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.949 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.851-1.059]). Male sex was associated with an increased risk of new-onset dialysis (HR 0.689 [95% CI 0.488-0.974]). Female sex was associated with a significantly increased risk of both new-onset heart failure (HR 1.211 [95% CI 1.051-1.394], P = 0.0081) and heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.200 [95% CI 1.036-1.390], P = 0.015). No statistically significant differences were seen in any of the other secondary outcomes between sexes.

Conclusions

This population health study demonstrated that survival did not differ between male and female patients undergoing SAVR. Significant sex-related differences were found in the risk of heart failure and new-onset dialysis, but these findings should be considered exploratory and require further study.

Mid-term outcomes of rapid deployment aortic prostheses in patients with small aortic annulus

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards Intuity valve is a rapid deployment aortic prosthesis that favours less invasive approaches. However, evidence about the clinical behaviour of their smaller sizes is scarce. Herein, we studied haemodynamic behaviours and clinical outcomes of small Intuity prostheses (19-21 mm) in comparison to larger Intuity prostheses (>21 mm).

METHODS

This is an observational study including patients implanted with an Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis. Patients with prosthesis sizes 19-21 and >21 mm were included. Baseline and perioperative variables, as well as adverse events during the follow-up were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (37% female, mean age 75 ± 4.5 years) were included, of whom 54 (45%) were implanted with a small prosthesis and 68 (55%) with a prosthesis >21 mm. There were no significant differences between patients with small Intuity prostheses and patients with larger prostheses regarding in-hospital mortality (2% vs 4%, P = 0.43) or mortality during the follow-up (3.41 vs 2.45 per 100 patients-years; P = 0.58). Survival in the small Intuity valve group was 95% at 1 year and 83% at 6 years, whereas in the larger Intuity valve group was 96% at 1 year and 78% at 6 years. The presence of a small prosthesis did not influence mid-term survival (log-rank P-value = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed good clinical performance of Intuity aortic prostheses with appropriate mid-term survival in patients with the small aortic annulus. Thus, the Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis may be considered as a potential option in patients with the small aortic annulus.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The issue of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been a controversial topic. We sought to evaluate the long-term clinical impacts of PPM in patients undergoing SAVR in an updated, homogeneous cohort.

METHODS

Using the prospective institutional database, we identified 895 adult patients (median age 66, interquartile range 58-72; 45.6% women) who underwent isolated SAVR from January 2000 to March 2016. Those with pure aortic insufficiency and concomitant other cardiac operations were excluded from this study cohort. The presence of a significant PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area 0.85 cm2/m2 or less. The outcome of interest was all-cause deaths. Propensity score matching was performed for adjusting bias.

RESULTS

Significant PPM was present in 247 patients (27.6%). During the follow-up period (mean 71.2 ± 51.04 months), 134 patients (15%) died. Survival rates at 10 and 15 years were 78.3% vs 83.8% and 71.3% vs 57.6% in the PPM and non-PPM groups (P = 0.972). Risk factor analysis indicated that developing PPM was not associated with a risk of death. After propensity score matching (1:1), developing PPM was not a risk factor for long-term death as well (P = 0.584).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant PPM was common after SAVR in patients with aortic stenosis. However, there was no significant difference in survival rate between those with and without PPM.

Benchmarking Outcomes: Reoperation for Aortic Valve Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch

BACKGROUND

Surgical reoperations for symptomatic aortic valve patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) are complex. The purpose of this research was to investigate the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who underwent reoperation for correction of symptomatic PPM after prior aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

An institutional review identified 60 patients from 2004 to 2018 who underwent reoperative aortic valve replacement for PPM without structural valve degeneration. Univariate analyses were conducted to evaluate risk factors for perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 62.8 (interquartile range, 48.3-68.7) years, and mean body mass index was 29.2 ± 6.6 kg/m2. Thirty-nine (66%) patients underwent a first-time reoperation, and 18 (30.5%) underwent a second-time reoperation. The median interval between initial operation to reoperation for the treatment of PPM was 89 months. Thirty-four (56.7%) patients underwent aortic root replacement, while the remainder (43.3%) underwent aortic valve replacement. Additional procedures included replacement of the ascending aorta with or without aortic arch in 26 (43.3%) patients and coronary artery bypass grafting in 7 (12%) patients. Operative mortality and the rates of stroke and renal failure were 5.0%, 3.3%, and 5.0%, respectively. Echocardiographic follow-up was available in 64.9% of patients at a mean follow-up of 36.5 months. Preoperative mean pressure gradients were 32.1 ± 16.0 mm Hg and mean aortic valve area was 0.8 ± 0.3 cm2, and both improved to 6.6 ± 4.2 mm Hg and 2.3 ± 0.7 cm2 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative surgery for PPM is complex but may be performed with good outcomes and low mortality in experienced centers. These data provide excellent clinical and hemodynamic benchmarks for the treatment of PPM in the current era of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Worsens Long-Term Survival: Insights From the FinnValve Registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on long-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is controversial. We sought to investigate the incidence of PPM and its impact on survival and reinterventions in a Finnish nationwide cohort.

METHODS

In the context of the nationwide FinnValve registry, we identified 4097 patients who underwent SAVR with a stented bioprosthesis with or without myocardial revascularization. The indexed effective orifice areas (EOAs) of surgical bioprostheses were calculated using literature-derived EOAs. PPM was graded as moderate (EOA 0.65-0.85 cm²/m²) or severe (EOA ≤0.65 cm²/m²).

RESULTS

The incidence of PPM was 46.0%. PPM was moderate in 38.8% (n = 1579) patients and severe in 7.2% (n = 297) patients. Time-trend analysis showed that the proportion of PPM decreased significantly from 74% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 (P < .01). Severe PPM was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.76; P = .02). Severe PPM was not associated with an increased risk of repeat AVR (adjusted HR, 5.90; 95% CI, 0.95-36.5; P = .06). In a subanalysis of patients greater than or equal to 70 years of age, in comparison with no PPM, any PPM (adjusted HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; P = .01) and severe PPM (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; P < 0.01) were associated with increased risk of 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM after SAVR had a negative impact on survival. This study demonstrated that the effects of PPM should not be overlooked in elderly undergoing SAVR.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Increases Early and Late Mortality in Low Risk Aortic Valve Replacement

The concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) has gained much attention since first described 40 years ago. Previous studies have shown conflicting evidence regarding increased early and late morbidity and mortality with PPM after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PPM on short- and long-term mortality in low-risk patients after isolated AVR. A retrospective, single-center study involving 1707 consecutive patients ≤80 years of age with preserved left ventricular systolic function who underwent elective, primary isolated AVR operations from 2008 to 2018. Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to the presence of PPM (n = 96), defined as effective orifice area index <0.85 cm²/m² body surface area, and no-PPM (n = 1611). The effect of PPM on mortality was evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4.2% in PPM group vs 0.6 in no-PPM group; P = 0.005). PPM occurred more in female gender, obese and older patients. PPM was highly associated with long-term all-cause mortality (median 4 years [Q1-Q3 2-7]; HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.27-2.55, P = 0.002), and remained strongly and independently associated after adjustment for other risk factors (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10-2.34, P = 0.014). In propensity score-matched analysis, the adjusted mortality risk was higher in PPM group (HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.22-3.39, P = 0.006) compared to no-PPM group. In a single-centre observational study, PPM increased early mortality and was independently associated with long-term all-cause mortality after low-risk, primary isolated AVR operations. Strategies to avoid PPM should be explored and implemented.

The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch on survival after aortic and mitral valve replacement: a 10 year, single institution experience

Background

The evidence on the impact of patient-prosthesis Mismatch (PPM) on survival thus far has been conflicting. The aim of this study was to 1) study the effect of PPM on survival after isolated aortic and mitral valve replacement and 2) Assess the interaction between left ventricular function and PPM on survival.

Methods

The study cohort was patients who underwent isolated Aortic valve replacement (AVR) and Mitral valve replacement (MVR) over a 10-year period from 2008 to 2018. PPM was defined using the projected indexed effective orifice area (EOAi). The cohort was divided into different groups based on the degree of PPM. The severity of PPM was classified using threshold values of EOAi used in the literature. The Kaplan- Meier method was used to compare survival by degree of PPM. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals. An interactive term for ejection fraction (EF) was added to test whether EF modifies the effect of the PPM grade on survival. In addition, sub-group analysis based on left ventricular function was performed.

Results

In the AVR cohort, there were a total of 1953 patients. The distribution of patients in the different PPM categories was as follows: no PPM 59.7%; moderate PPM 36.8%; severe PPM 3.5%. There was no significant difference in survival between the different groups. At 10 years, the adjusted HR between patients with severe PPM versus no PPM was 1.1(CI 0.5–2.4, p >  0.05) and the HR between those with moderate PPM versus no PPM was 0.97 (CI 0.74–1.23, p >  0.05). In the MVR cohort, there were a total of 298 patients. The distribution of PPM is as follows: no PPM 59.4%; and with PPM 40.6%. Again, there was no significant difference in survival between the groups. At 5 years, the adjusted HR between patients with PPM versus no PPM was 1.45 (CI 0.67–3.14, p >  0.05). In both groups, there was no significant interaction between left ventricular function (LVF) and degree of PPM on survival.

Conclusions

In our study cohort, the degree of PPM was not an independent predictor of survival after AVR or MVR. There was also no significant interaction between LV function and degree of PPM on survival.

Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis

OBJECTIVES

The study objectives were to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a novel stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis 2 years after implantation.

METHODS

The PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNT Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic moderate/severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation at centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States. We report the outcomes and hemodynamic performance in patients with up to 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 1273 patients were enrolled, and 1110 underwent implantation. Among patients undergoing implantation, the mean age was 70.2 ± 8.9 years; 833 (75.0%) were male. Risk of mortality (Society of Thoracic Surgeons) was 2.0% ± 1.4%. At the time of analysis, 604 patients had completed the 2-year follow-up visit. Linearized late event rates were as follows: all death, 2.68%; valve-related death, 0.42%; valve thrombosis, 0.05%; endocarditis, 0.94%; thromboembolism, 1.68%; all hemorrhage, 2.94%; major hemorrhage, 1.99%; all paravalvular leak, 0.26%; and major paravalvular leak, 0.05% per patient-year. Mean 2-year aortic gradient and effective orifice area were 13.4 ± 5.0 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.37 cm², respectively. Moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were observed in 43.5% and 34.8% of patients at 2 years, respectively. Improvement in New York Heart Association class compared with baseline was observed in 73.0% with moderate mismatch and 74.1% with severe mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The Avalus (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) bovine pericardial valve demonstrates good clinical and safety outcomes at 2 years. Hemodynamic performance shows mean gradients comparable to currently available bovine pericardial aortic valves. There was no clinical impact of moderate to severe mismatch at 2 years. Further follow-up is required to evaluate midterm to long-term clinical outcome.

Supra-annular versus intra-annular prostheses in aortic valve replacement: impact on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The superiority of supra-annular aortic prostheses over intra-annular equivalents in long-term haemodynamics and clinical outcomes remains controversial. This study compared outcomes among patients receiving supra-annular or intra-annular prostheses during aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We enrolled 587 consecutive patients (mean age 55.1 ± 11.3 years; 188 women) undergoing aortic valve replacement with either supra-annular (n = 316) or intra-annular (n = 271) mechanical prostheses between 2000 and 2016 in our institute. Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic profiles in the 2 groups were compared after propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

Early death (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = 0.863) was equivalent for both groups. Patients receiving supra-annular prostheses showed a lower rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch (1.2% vs 25.8%; P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 65 months (quartile 1-3, 30-108 months), overall deaths occurred in 84 (14.3%) patients. The latest echocardiographic assessment in the 136 propensity score-matched pairs demonstrated superior haemodynamics with implantation of supra-annular prostheses: peak velocity (2.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 0.5 m/s; P < 0.001), mean pressure gradient (16.5 ± 9.0 vs 12.0 ± 6.2 mmHg; P < 0.001) and left ventricular mass index (113.6 ± 30.3 vs 105.3 ± 26.3 g/m2; P = 0.016). After adjusting with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, however, the choice of supra-annular over intra-annular prosthesis did not significantly affect the risk of overall mortality (P = 0.693) or major adverse events: stroke (P = 0.944), infective endocarditis (P = 0.958) and reoperation (P = 0.944).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of supra-annular prostheses resulted in superior haemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression, while conferring no apparent clinical benefits. Follow-up studies are required to further evaluate the impact of superior haemodynamics associated with supra-annular prostheses on long-term clinical outcomes.

Patient prosthesis mismatch and its impact on left ventricular regression following aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients

Introduction

Patient prosthesis mismatch is known to alter post-operative remodeling of left ventricle adversely in aortic stenosis patients. An indexed orifice area of 0.85 is considered as conventional cutoff for patient prosthesis mismatch based on hemodynamic principles. Many patients have smaller annulus and annulus enlargement techniques may be required to avoid this benchmark which complicates the surgery.

Aims and objectives

To determine incidence of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in our population, to assess left ventricle (LV) regression and impact of indexed effective orifice area on LV regression, and to determine a minimum acceptable cut off indexed orifice area that will result in LV regression.

Materials and methods

A single-center retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement surgery for severe aortic stenosis between July 2015 and December 2015 was conducted. Patients who underwent concomitant revascularization or other valve surgery were excluded. Data regarding conventional risk factors for PPM, valve type, and indexed orifice area as well as pre-operative and late post-operative LV mass were collected.

Observations

Thirty-seven of the 91 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. All patients had significant regression in LV mass. The incidence of PPM was 68%. Regression of indexed left ventricular mass showed a positive correlation of with indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. The correlation coefficient is + 0.48 (95% CI 0.18-0.698). Left ventricular mass regression was significantly higher in patients with indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (68.89 ± 29 vs 122.55 ± 58.84, p = 0.028). Relative left ventricular regression also was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective orifice area more than 0.75 (39.53 ± 13.13 vs 49.73 ± 15.56, p = 0.022). There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and the reduction in mean gradient achieved by valve replacement. The correlation coefficient was + 0.35 (95% CI 0.03-0.61).

Conclusions

The incidence of PPM was found to be comparable to literature. There is a positive correlation between left ventricular regression and indexed effective orifice area of the prosthetic valve. Left ventricular regression was significantly higher in patients with an indexed effective area more than 0.75. This can be considered as criteria for significant PPM in study population.

Sex-Specific Considerations in Women with Aortic Stenosis and Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the elderly and is associated with poor outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Herein, we describe the gender-related differences in baseline characteristics and pathophysiologic response to severe AS, imaging considerations unique to females, and short- and long-term outcomes after TAVR. Women undergoing TAVR are older and frailer, have less cardiovascular comorbidities, smaller femoral artery size, better left ventricular systolic function, hypertrophied and small left ventricles leading to a higher incidence of paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS, and a greater prevalence of porcelain aorta, smaller aortic annulus size, and lower coronary ostia heights. Imaging and histopathological data also suggests a sex-related myocardial response to pressure overload from AS. Women experience more vascular complications and blood transfusion requirements, serious procedural complications, and a greater incidence of stroke, but have better long-term outcomes than men. Patient-prosthesis mismatch, which is a concern in patients with a small aortic annulus size undergoing SAVR, has not been problematic with TAVR. The aforementioned findings suggest that TAVR may be preferable for women with severe AS. Further studies are warranted to directly compare TAVR with SAVR in women.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement: a retrospective analysis in East China

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) may affect the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aimed to determine the incidence of PPM, its effect on short-term mortality, and the factors contributing to PPM in China.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined all consecutive patients with isolated or concomitant AVR at our hospital between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. PPM was defined as an effective orifice area index (EOAi) of ≤ 0.85 cm²/m². The baseline, echocardiographic, operative, and outcome data of all patients were collected from the national database.

RESULTS

A total of 869 patients were included in the study. PPM was detected in 15.9% (138/869) of the patients. Four patients (0.5%) met the criteria for severe PPM. Patients with PPM were older and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease, aortic stenosis (AS), and preoperative left ventricular dysfunction but a lower incidence of smoking history and aortic regurgitation. Logistic regression analysis showed that female gender (P < 0.001), AS (P = 0.014), higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001), and bioprosthesis (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of PPM. We also found that PPM (P = 0.005) was associated with 30-day all-cause mortality, along with smoking history (P = 0.001) and low preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PPM is associated with high short-term mortality after AVR in China. Female gender, aortic stenosis, bioprosthesis, and high BMI are risk factors for the incidence of PPM.

Aortic Annulus Enlargement: Early and Long-Terms Results

AIM:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a common occurrence in aortic valve surgery. Even the discussions about the impact of this phenomenon on the results of aortic valve surgery, the management of this problem remain one of the main topics in this kind of surgery. One of the ways of a solution is aortic annulus enlargement. The main topic of this study is to evaluate the early and longterm results of this technique in our country.

METHODS:

During the period January 2010 –January 2015, 641 patients performed aortic valve surgery. In ten patients we performed aortic annulus enlargement according to Manouguian technique to avoid severe patient-prothesis mismatch. Operative mortality and perioperative complications (low cardiac output, pulmonary complications, etc..) were considered the indicators of the early results. Survival, clinical presentation according to NYHA, quality of life were the indicators to evaluate long-term results. Preoperative and postoperative echocardiographic data were also used to evaluate our results. We collected the data from hospital registrations and periodical clinical visit and echographic examination after hospital discharge.

RESULTS:

In our group, 6 of 10 patients were diagnosed with stenotic aortic valve, two patients had aortic valve regurgitation and two mixed valve pathology. Four patients had concomitant cardiac surgery procedure, mitral or CABG. In all cases, aortic valve pathology was the primary diagnose. In the preoperative echocardiographic examination mean transvalvular gradient was 54.3 ± 6.42. We had no death during early or late postoperative period. Only one patient had pulmonary complications and long time of respiratory assistance because of his pulmonary pathology. The same patient had low cardiac output and wound infection. Early after surgery mean transprostethic gradient was 16.2 ± 3.44 and late postoperative was 15.9 ± 4.3. No patient had the severe patient-prothesis mismatch. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 20.26 months. During follow-up, we had no death, and all patients had very good quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS:

Aortic valve annulus enlargement can be used with very good early and late results with the final goal to increase the potential benefit of the patient from surgery of aortic valve.

Long-term Mortality Predictors in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with a 19- or 21-mm Bioprosthesis

Introduction

Replacement of the aortic valve in patients with a small aortic annulus is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A prosthesis-patient mismatch is one of the main problems associated with failed valves in this patient population.

Objective

To evaluate the long-term mortality predictors in patients with a small aortic annulus undergoing aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, a total of 101 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement from January 2000 to December 2010 were studied. There were 81 (80.19%) women with a mean age of 52.81±18.4 years. Severe aortic stenosis was the main indication for surgery in 54 (53.4%) patients. Posterior annulus enlargement was performed in 16 (15.8%) patients. Overall, 54 (53.41%) patients underwent concomitant surgery: 28 (27.5%) underwent mitral valve replacement, and 13 (12.7%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Results

Mean valve index was 0.82±0.08 cm(2)/m(2). Overall, 17 (16.83%) patients had a valve index lower than 0.75 cm(2)/m(2), without statistical significance for mortality (P=0.12). The overall 10-year survival rate was 83.17%. The rate for patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement was 91.3% and 73.1% (P=0.02) for patients who underwent concomitant surgery. In the univariate analysis, the main predictors of mortality were preoperative ejection fraction (P=0.02; HR 0.01) and EuroSCORE II results (P=0.00000042; HR 1.13). In the multivariate analysis, the main predictors of mortality were age (P=0.01, HR 1.04) and concomitant surgery (P=0.01, HR 5.04). Those relationships were statistically significant.

Conclusion

A valve index of < 0.75 cm(2)/m(2) did not affect 10-year survival. However, concomitant surgery and age significantly affected mortality.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

Does patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement affect survival and quality of life in elderly patients?

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on survival, functional status, and quality of life (QoL) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with small prosthesis size in elderly patients.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and December 2013, 152 patients with pure aortic stenosis, aged at least 75 years, underwent AVR, with a 19 or 21 mm prosthetic heart valve. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.85 cm/m. Median age was 82 years (range 75-93 years). Mean follow-up was 56 months (range 1-82 months) and was 98% complete. Late survival rate, New York Heart Association functional class, and QoL (RAND SF-36) were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, PPM was found in 78 patients (53.8%). Among them, 42 patients (29%) had an indexed effective orifice area less than 0.75 cm/m and 17 less than 0.65 cm/m (11.7%). Overall survival at 5 years was 78 ± 4.5% and was not influenced by PPM (P = NS). The mean New York Heart Association class for long-term survivors with PPM improved from 3.0 to 1.7 (P < 0.001). QoL (physical functioning 45.18 ± 11.35, energy/fatigue 49.36 ± 8.64, emotional well being 58.84 ± 15.44, social functioning 61.29 ± 6.15) was similar to that of no-PPM patients (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

PPM after AVR does not affect survival, functional status, and QoL in patients aged at least 75 years. Surgical procedures, often time-consuming, contemplated to prevent PPM, may therefore be not justified in this patient subgroup.

Aortic valve replacement and prosthesis-patient mismatch in the era of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

Objective

The treatment strategy for aortic stenosis (AS) has been changing due to newly developed valvular prostheses and trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To determine the role of new modalities for AS with a small aortic root, papers using the concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) were reviewed.

Methods

First, to determine the cut-off value of the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) for defining PPM, the studies of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a follow-up longer than 5 years and a patient number larger than 500 were reviewed. Second, the papers comparing TAVI and SAVR were reviewed. Furthermore, the prevalence of PPM was reviewed, with the addition of papers on aortic root enlargement, sutureless AVR, and aortic valve reconstruction with autologous pericardium.

Results and conclusion

The results of the long-term survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have indicated that an IEOA less than 0.65 cm²/m² should be avoided in all cases, whereas the indications for patients with an IEOA between 065 and 0.85 cm²/m² should be determined by considering multiple factors. A large body size and younger age have a significantly negative influence on the long-term survival. In Asian population, the prevalence of PPM was low, despite the fact that the size of the aortic annulus was small. The IEOA after TAVI was larger than after surgical AVR in population-matched studies. To evaluate the role of TAVI and other modalities for a small aortic root, studies with a longer follow-up and larger volume are thus warranted.

No clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid-term follow-up: an analysis from the NOTION trial

OBJECTIVES

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) is common, but less common after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients considered at high risk for death after surgery. The objectives of this study were to determine incidence and clinical effect of PPM after SAVR and TAVR in a primarily low-risk patient group.

METHODS

Patients 70 years or older with severe isolated AVS, regardless of predicted operative mortality risk, were consecutively randomized 1:1 to TAVR using a self-expandable bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR (n = 135). Post-procedure PPM was graded after 3 months as follows: Not present-mild, if indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) >0.85 cm²/m², moderate, if 0.65 cm²/m² < iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm²/m² and severe, if iEOA ≤0.65 cm²/m². Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, e.g. composite rate of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction or valve reintervention), cardiac-related hospitalizations and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class after 2 years.

RESULTS

The incidence and the severity of PPM were significantly lower after TAVR compared with SAVR (severe, moderate, none-mild 14.0, 35.5, 50.4 vs 33.9, 36.7, 29.4%; P<0.001). PPM resulted in similar higher mean valve gradients at 3 months for both groups. Baseline characteristics related to severe PPM were younger age, absence of diabetes mellitus, lower mortality-risk score for TAVR, and younger age and higher body mass index for SAVR. At 2 years, there were numerical but no statistically significant differences between both TAVR and SAVR patients with severe and no severe PPM for MACCE (0.0 vs 12.8% for TAVR; P = 0.13, and 13.5 vs 7.0% for SAVR; P = 0.27), number of cardiac-related hospitalizations (mean ± standard deviation 0.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.6 ± 0.8; P = 0.23, and 0.4 ± 0.8 vs 0.5 ± 0.9; P = 0.70) and NYHA functional class (Class I/II/III/IV: 64.7/29.4/5.9/0.0 vs 62.1/34.7/3.2/0.0%, respectively; P = 0.91, and 71.4/25.7/2.9/0.0 vs 72.9/22.9/4.3/0.0%, respectively; P = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPM was lower and less severe after TAVR compared with SAVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe AVS. There were no significant differences in MACCE, cardiac-related hospitalizations or NYHA class after 2 years for patients with versus those without severe PPM.

Moderate Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Has No Negative Effect on Patients' Functional Status After Aortic Valve Replacement With CarboMedics Prosthesis

Background:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the subject of continuing debate in the cardiac surgery field.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and severity of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and the functional status of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a CarboMedics prosthesis in the mid-term follow up.

Patients and Methods:

We retrospectively studied 66 consecutive patients who were referred to AVR with a CarboMedics prosthesis at the Rajaie cardiovascular medical and research center, a university referral hospital in Tehran, Iran. The severity of PPM as well as clinical and echocardiographic parameters and the patients’ New York heat association (NYHA) functional classification status, operative data and postoperative complications, and mortality in a mid-term (4 - 5 months) follow up period was assessed. Severe PPM was defined as the effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the patient’s body surface area (BSA) < 0.65 cm²/m² and moderate PPM was defined as the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) between 0.65 and 0.85 cm²/m².

Results:

Of the 66 studied patients, 39 were male and 27 were female. The mean age of the patients was 43 ± 17 with a range of 6 - 76 years. Implanted sizes of the CarboMedics AV prosthesis in 22 patients were 19 and 21 mm, and in 44 patients were 23 and 25 mm. Eleven patients had moderate PPM (IEOA < 0.85 cm²/m²) and 55 of them did not have PPM (IEOA ≥ 0.85 cm²/m²). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the echocardiographic trans-aortic pressure gradients (35.6 ± 19 vs. 23.2 ± 16 mmHg; P = 0.061) and the mean NYHA functional classification (1.10 ± 0.3 vs. 1.01 ± 0.10; P = 0.074) after AVR in the mid-term follow up.

Conclusions:

Moderate PPM has no negative effect on echocardiographic trans-aortic pressure gradients or the patients’ NYHA functional status after AVR with a CarboMedics prosthesis in the mid-term follow up.

Incidence and Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Isolated Aortic Valve Surgery

AIM:

The mains topics of this work are the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and the influence in the early results of isolated aortic valve surgery.

METHODS:

In 193 patients isolated aortic valve surgery was performed. The study population was divided in three subgroups: 20 patients with severe, 131 patients with moderate and 42 patients without patient-prosthesis mismatch. The indexed effective orifice area was used to define the subgroups. Operative mortality and perioperative complications were considered the indicators of the early results of aortic valve surgery.

RESULTS:

The incidence of severe and moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch was respectively 10.3% and 67.8%. Hospital mortality and perioperative complications were: mortality 5% vs. 3.1% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.855), low cardiac output 5% vs. 6.9% vs. 4.8% (p = 0.861); pulmonary complications 5% vs. 3.1 vs. 0.0% (p = 0.430); exploration for bleeding 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 2.4% (p = 0.319); atrial fibrillation 30% vs. 19.8% vs. 11.9% (p = 0.225); wound infection 5% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.00% (p = 0.165), respectively for the group with severe, moderate and without patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patient-prosthesis mismatch is a common occurrence in aortic valve surgery. This phenomenon does not affect the early results of aortic valve surgery.

Longevity after mechanical aortic root replacement--do men live longer?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether longevity after mechanical aortic root replacement is influenced by the patient's gender.

METHODS

From February 1998 to June 2011, 476 patients (376 men, 100 women, mean age, 53±12 years; range, 18-88) underwent composite aortic root replacement. Of these patients, 398 (312 men) were included in the present analysis. The indications for root replacement were aortic valve dysfunction (mostly stenosis) and concomitant aneurysmal disease in 334 (83.9%), acute type A aortic dissection in 51 (12.8%), and infective endocarditis in 10 (2.5%). Other indications were technical or anatomic considerations (0.8%).

RESULTS

The women who presented for surgery were significantly older (men, 52±12 years vs women, 56±12 years; P=.01). However, no significant differences were found with regard to previous cardiac surgery (5.3%, 20 men [6.4%] vs 1 woman [1.2%]; P=.06), concomitant procedures (38%; 117 men [37.5%] vs 35 women [40.7%]; P=.62), or additive EuroSCORE (men, 5.1±2.2; women, 5.2±2.2; P=.55). The mean diameter of the ascending aorta was not significantly different between the 2 groups (men, 54±9 mm; women, 56±14 mm; P=.97). The median follow-up period was 7.4 years (range, 0-13; 2366 cumulative patient-years), with no significant difference in hospital mortality (men, 6.7% vs women, 10.5%; P=.25). Overall, men enjoyed significantly better longevity than did women. After 10 years, 73%±3% of the men and only 60%±6% of the women were alive (P=.03). Although no long-term survival benefit for either gender was found in an age-matched subgroup among young patients (P=.66), men experienced much more favorable longevity after 55 years of age (P=.04). Consequently, the longevity in men-but not in women-was equal to an age-matched normal population.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, long-term survival after mechanical aortic root replacement was significantly better among men. However, comparing age-matched subgroups≤55 years old, no significantly different life expectancy was found after mechanical root replacement.

Can postoperative mean transprosthetic pressure gradient predict survival after aortic valve replacement?

Background

In this study, we sought to determine the effect of the mean transprosthetic pressure gradient (TPG), measured at 6 weeks after aortic valve replacement (AVR) or AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on late all-cause mortality.

Methods

Between January 1998 and March 2012, 2,276 patients (mean age 68 ± 11 years) underwent TPG analysis at 6 weeks after AVR (n = 1,318) or AVR with CABG (n = 958) at a single institution. Mean TPG was 11.6 ± 7.8 mmHg and median TPG 11 mmHg. Based on the TPG, the patients were split into three groups: patients with a low TPG (<10 mmHg), patients with a medium TPG (10–19 mmHg) and patients with a high TPG (≥20 mmHg). Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was used to determine univariate predictors and multivariate independent predictors of late mortality.

Results

Overall survival for the entire group at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 97, 93, 87 and 67 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between patients with a low, medium or high TPG (p = 0.258). Independent predictors of late mortality included age, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a history of a cerebrovascular accident and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), severe PPM and TPG measured at 6 weeks postoperatively were not significantly associated with late mortality.

Conclusions

TPG measured at 6 weeks after AVR or AVR with CABG is not an independent predictor of all-cause late mortality and there is no significant difference in long-term survival between patients with a low, medium or high TPG.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

The clinical impacts of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been debated since Rahimtoola first reported PPM in 1978. Many reports discussing several aspects of PPM have been published to date, but the definitive clinical impacts of PPM have not yet been clarified.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to evaluate recent articles regarding PPM and discuss the latest findings.

RESULTS

Moderate PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) did not affect the surgical outcomes in several papers, but severe PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) affected early and late mortality in almost of the all papers in which it was reported. PPM had a greater effect on younger patients and patients with left ventricular dysfunction than it did on elderly patients and patients with preserved left ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

Based on recent findings, it is difficult to define the impact of PPM after AVR. To some degree, PPM affects the clinical outcomes after AVR; therefore, it is important to avoid PPM, especially severe PPM.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on early and late mortality after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to determine the effect of PPM on early (≤30 days) and late mortality (>30 days) after AVR or AVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (AVR with CABG).

METHODS

Between January 1998 and March 2012, 2976 patients underwent AVR (n= 1718) or AVR with CABG (n=1258) at a single institution. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area (EOAI) ≤0.85 cm2/m2 and patients were divided into two groups based on the existence of PPM. Cumulative probability values of survival were estimated with Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using Breslow test. Univariate and multivariate independent predictors of early mortality were identified using logistic regression. Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was used to determine univariate and multivariate independent predictors of late mortality.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 6.7% in the PPM group vs 4.7% in the group with no PPM (p=0.013). Late mortality for the PPM group at 1, 5 and 10 years was 4%, 16% and 43%, respectively. Late mortality for the group with no PPM at 1, 5 and 10 years was 4%, 15% and 33% respectively. Independent predictors of early mortality included age, severely impaired left ventricular (LV) function, endocarditis, renal dysfunction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time. Multivariate independent predictors of late mortality included age, severely impaired LV function, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), renal dysfunction, history of a cerebrovascular accident (CVA), CPB time and a history of previous cardiac surgery. PPM was not an independent predictor of early or late mortality.

CONCLUSION

PPM is not an independent predictor of both early and late mortality after AVR or AVR combined with CABG.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may affect clinical outcomes in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR). We retrospectively examined the PPM in patients with isolated AVR in the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JACVSD).

METHODS

We examined all patients with isolated AVR between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The JACVSD data collection form has a total of 255 variables. We defined PPM as an effective orifice area index of ≤ 0.85 m(2)/cm(2).

RESULTS

PPM was observed in 306 of 3,609 cases analyzed, PPM rate was 8.5 %. Body surface area was larger and body mass index was higher in the PPM group than the non-PPM group (P < 0.001). Patients with PPM were older (P = 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes (P = 0.004), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001), hypertension (P < 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (P = 0.031), old myocardial infarction (P = 0.006), previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention (P = 0.001), coronary artery disease (P = 0.018), and aortic valve stenosis (P < 0.001). Perioperative blood transfusion (P < 0.001) and dialysis (P = 0.005) were more frequent in the PPM group. Postoperative ventilation (P = 0.004) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.004) were significantly longer in the PPM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, aortic valve stenosis, dyslipidemia, hypertension, old myocardial infarction, previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease, and high body mass index were the risk factors for PPM. PPM was not an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.

Aortic valve replacement with smaller valve size

The occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement with a small valve size was evaluated in 249 patients, focusing on echocardiographic data. Aortic valve pathology included regurgitation in 174 patients and stenosis in 75. Echocardiography was performed in the early and late postoperative periods. A projected effective orifice area index < 0.85 cm(2)·m(-2) was noted in 56 patients; values ≥ 0.85 cm(2)·m(-2) were found in 128. Postoperative changes in ejection fraction, left ventricular mass regression, and peak transprosthetic gradient were similar in both groups. Small prostheses (≤ 19 mm) were used in 43 patients who had significantly higher postoperative transprosthetic gradients in both the early and late periods, compared to those with larger prostheses. Our findings show that the occurrence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement is rare. Left ventricular mass regression occurred in most patients, with acceptable transprosthetic gradients.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch: an update

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is too small in relation to body size. Its main hemodynamic consequence is to generate higher than expected gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. The purpose of this review is to present an update on the present state of knowledge with regard to diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention of PPM. PPM is a frequent occurrence (20% to 70% of aortic valve replacements) that has been shown to be associated with worse hemodynamics, less regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, more cardiac events, and lower survival. Moreover, as opposed to most other risk factors, PPM can largely be prevented by using a prospective strategy at the time of operation.

Defining patient-prosthesis mismatch and its effect on survival in patients with impaired ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

How best to define patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) continues to be debated. Over time, the indexed effective orifice area has become the most widely used method. However, the clinical relevance of PPM remains controversial.

METHODS

The indexed geometric orifice area and indexed effective orifice area were calculated for 143 patients having undergone aortic valve replacement with a normal left ventricular function 0.45 or less. Using the indexed geometric orifice area method, PPM was defined as nonsignificant if 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or greater and as significant if less than 1.2 cm(2)/m(2). Using the indexed effective orifice area method, PPM was considered as nonsignificant if greater than 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), as moderate if greater than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and less than or equal to 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and as severe PPM if 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) or less.

RESULTS

The number of patients classified as having PPM differed according to the method used to predict its presence (PPM: Effective orifice area method = 72.7%; geometric method = 19.6%). Regardless of the method used to classify PPM there was no significant effect on mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.65 at 1 year, 0.99 at 5 years, 0.92 at 9 years; p = not significant). The postoperative mean transvalvular gradient (17.1 ± 6.5 mm Hg) and left ventricular function (0.50 ± 0.145) improved significantly compared with the preoperative findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The method used to calculate PPM resulted in significant classification discordance. However, regardless of classification, the presence of PPM did not adversely affect long-term outcome.