HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roscitano, A. Articles by Sinatra, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roscitano, A. Articles by Sinatra, R. Related Collections Coronary disease Great vessels Mechanical Circulatory Assistance Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:139-143
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Indexed effective orifice area after mechanical aortic valve replacement does not affect left ventricular mass regression in elderly

Division of Cardiac Surgery, St. Andrea Hospital, University of Rome "La Sapienza" Via di Grottarossa 1035, Rome 00181, Italy

Received 18 August 2005; received in revised form 3 November 2005; accepted 7 November 2005.

^_* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 80345007; fax: +39 06 80345483. (Email: u2benedetto{at}libero.it).

Objective: After aortic valve replacement, the effects of a small functional prosthesis on the extent and pattern of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and on clinical outcomes may be less significant in older patients with low cardiac output requirements. The objective of this study was therefore to determine whether patient-prosthesis mismatch affects left ventricular mass regression in the elderly. Methods: The population studied was made up of 88 patients over 65 years of age with pure aortic stenosis who underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement. The effective orifice area index was calculated for each patient on the basis of the projected prosthesis in vivo effective orifice area. It was considered a continuous variable and influence of its entire range of values on the extent of left ventricular mass regression was analyzed in a multivariate prediction model. Results: Even though, in the group with prosthesis-patient mismatch there was a trend for lower postoperative left ventricular mass index (115 ± 24 g/m² vs 102 ± 27 g/m², p = 0.24) and postoperative peak trans-prosthetic gradients (32 ± 9.8 mmHg vs 28.9 ± 7.79 mmHg, p = 0.35) these differences were not statistically significant. The prevalence of residual left ventricular hypertrophy at follow-up was 50% in the group with patient-prosthesis mismatch and 50% in the group without patient-prosthesis mismatch (p = 0.83). In multivariate analysis the only factors associated with indexed left ventricular mass were the follow-up time (p = 0.015, r ² = 0.22) and preoperative indexed left ventricular mass (p = 0.0012, r ² = 0.11). Conclusions: The major finding of our study is that patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect left ventricular mass regression in patients older than 65 with pure aortic stenosis who underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement. In older patients with low cardiac output requirements, even a small change in the valve effective orifice area after aortic valve replacement with modern efficient mechanical prosthesis, will result in a marked reduction of pressure gradient and this will be associated with a significant regression of left ventricular mass.

Key Words: Heart valve • Mechanical • Aortic valve • Replacement • Valve disease