Moderate Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Predicts Cardiac Events and Advanced Functional Class in Young and Middle-Aged Patients Undergoing Surgery Due to Severe Aortic Stenosis

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.

Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area.

RESULTS

The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.

The Russian Conduit - Combining Bentall and Ozaki Procedures for Concomitant Ascending Aorta Replacement and Aortic Valve Neocuspidization

In aortic valve disease cases, prosthetic valves have been used for valve replacement, however, these prostheses have inherent problems, and their quality in some countries is lower comparing to new-generation models, causing shorter durability. Aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) has emerged as an option, which can be applied to a wide spectrum of these diseases. Despite the promising results, this procedure is not widely spread among cardiac surgeons yet. We developed a surgical technique combining Bentall and Ozaki procedures to treat patients with concomitant ascending aorta replacement and AVNeo and we describe it in this paper.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch - what cardiac anesthesiologists need to know?

Prosthesis-patient Mismatch (PPM) is not uncommon with an incidence reported up to 70% after aortic valve (AV) replacement. Severe forms of PPM are less common (up to 20%); PPM can lead to increased short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is important to discriminate PPM from other forms of prosthetic valve dysfunction. Sometimes, prosthetic valve degenerative disease may coexist with PPM. Echocardiography plays an important role in the prevention and diagnosis of PPM. Preemptive strategies to prevent PPM include insertion of newer generation prosthetic valves with better hemodynamic characteristics, stentless prosthesis, aortic root enlargement to insert a larger prosthesis, aortic homograft, and transcutaneous AV implantation. We present an illustrative case and review the literature on PPM pertinent to anesthesiologists.

Transcatheter Replacement of Failed Bioprosthetic Valves

Background—

Transcatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may offer an advantage over reoperation. Supra-annular transcatheter valve position may be advantageous in achieving better hemodynamics after ViV. Our objective was to define targets for implantation that would improve hemodynamics after ViV.

Methods and Results—

Cases from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry were analyzed using centralized core laboratory assessment blinded to clinical events. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of elevated postprocedural gradients (mean ≥20 mm Hg). Optimal implantation depths were defined by receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 292 consecutive patients (age, 78.9±8.7 years; 60.3% male; 157 CoreValve Evolut and 135 Sapien XT) were evaluated. High implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of elevated gradients in comparison with low implantation (CoreValve Evolut, 15% versus 34.2%; P =0.03 and Sapien XT, 18.5% versus 43.5%; P =0.03, respectively). Optimal implantation depths were defined: CoreValve Evolut, 0 to 5 mm; Sapien XT, 0 to 2 mm (0–10% frame height); sensitivities, 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. The strongest independent correlate for elevated gradients after ViV was device position (high: odds ratio, 0.22; confidence interval, 0.1–0.52; P =0.001), in addition to type of device used (CoreValve Evolut: odds ratio, 0.5; confidence interval, 0.28–0.88; P =0.02) and surgical valve mechanism of failure (stenosis/mixed baseline failure: odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.51–6.45; P =0.002).

Conclusions—

High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate of lower postprocedural gradients in both self- and balloon-expandable transcatheter valves. These clinical evaluations support specific implantation targets to optimize hemodynamics after ViV.

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.