Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Hemodynamics During Exercise in Patients With Aortic Stenosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With a Balloon-Expandable Valve

Stress echocardiography in valvular heart disease

Valvular heart disease (VHD) has been a significant health problem, particularly in developed countries, in relation to the aging population. Recent developments in the management of VHD require a more accurate assessment of disease severity to determine the need for transcatheter interventions or open heart surgery. Stress echocardiography is a crucial imaging modality for identifying the underlying pathology of VHD. Optimal administration of exercise or intravenous drugs may reveal hemodynamic abnormalities under stress without posing an invasive risk. Therefore, the implementation of stress echocardiography is recommended for determining interventional indications and risk stratification in mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis. In addition, recent evidence has accumulated regarding the usefulness of stress echocardiography in various conditions including mitral stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and post-interventional VHD. Here, we summarize the current evidence and future perspectives on stress echocardiography in VHD.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). As the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence.

METHODS

For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed.

RESULTS

The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement has not been clear as multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM outcomes after SAVR vary more widely than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to 80% in SAVR and from 24% to 35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR ranges from 2% to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14% to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in SAVR and TAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both SAVR and TAVR.