Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects late survival after valve surgery for 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.

Left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes of aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic

Mosaic valve shows higher pressure gradient after aortic valve replacement compared to other same size labeled prostheses in postoperative echocardiogram. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term echocardiogram findings and long-term clinical outcomes of patients receiving a 19 mm Mosaic. Forty-six aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic and 112 patients receiving either 19 mm Magna or Inspiris, who underwent mid-term follow-up echocardiogram were included in the study. Mid-term hemodynamic measurements evaluated by trans-thoracic echocardiogram and long-term outcomes were compared. Patients receiving Mosaic were significantly older (Mosaic: 76 ± 5.1 years vs. Magna/Inspiris: 74 ± 5.5 years, p = 0.046) and had smaller body surface area (Mosaic: 1.40 ± 0.114m2 vs. Magna/Inspiris: 1.48 ± 0.143m2, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in comorbidities and medications. Post-operative echocardiogram performed at 1 week after the surgery showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 38 ± 13.5 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 31 ± 10.7 mmHg, p = 0.002). Furthermore, mid-term echocardiogram follow-up performed at median duration of 53 ± 14.9 months after the surgery continuously showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 45 ± 15.6 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 32 ± 13.0 mmHg, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant difference in changes in left ventricular mass from baseline in both groups. Kaplan-Meyer curve also showed no difference in long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event between the two groups. Although the pressure gradient across the valve evaluated by echocardiogram was higher in 19 mm Mosaic compared to 19 mm Magna/Inspiris, there were no significant differences in left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes between the two groups.