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 Author home page(s): Thomas Walther Ardawan Rastan Volkmar Falk Friedrich W. Mohr Jan F. Gummert Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Walther, T. Articles by Gummert, J. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Walther, T. Articles by Gummert, J. F. Related Collections Cardiac - other Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;30:15-19
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement

Universität Leipzig, Herzzentrum, Klinik für Herzchirurgie, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany

Received 29 December 2005; received in revised form 2 April 2006; accepted 13 April 2006.

^_* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 341 865 1424; fax: +49 341 865 1452. (Email: walt{at}medizin.uni-leipzig.de).

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and additional risk factors on outcome after aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods: Four thousand one hundred and thirty-one patients who were operated between May 1996 and April 2004 were evaluated. One thousand eight hundred and fifty-six patients received bileaflet mechanical AVR and 2275 stented xenograft AVR. PPM was defined as severe if manufacturers effective orifice area (EOA) divided by body surface area (BSA) was < 0.65 cm²/m² and as moderate in the range of 0.65–0.85 cm²/m². PPM, age, gender, EOA index, emergency indication for surgery (within 24 h), EuroSCORE as well as requirement for additional procedures were tested. Univariate (Fisher's exact test) and multivariate logistic regression analysis as well as survival analysis (Kaplan–Meier) were performed. Results: Severe PPM was present in 97 (2.4%) and moderate PPM in 1103 (26.7%) patients. PPM occurs more frequently with xenograft AVR. In-hospital mortality was 5.2% for severe, 10.6% for moderate and 6.9% with no PPM (p = 0.018, OR 1.4). Moderate PPM was independently predictive for short- and long-term mortality. Further analysis revealed patient age > 70 years (n = 1589, p = 0.002, OR 1.85), emergency indication (n = 374, p < 0.001, OR 4.4), EuroSCORE > 10 (n = 494, p < 0.001, OR 4.7) and additional cardiac procedures (n = 2049, p < 0.001, OR 2.0) as predictors for adverse outcome after AVR. Conclusion: Severe PPM is rare; moderate PPM is present in a quarter of patients. PPM has a significant impact on short- and long-term mortality after AVR.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement • Stented aortic valve prosthesis • Patient prosthesis mismatch

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Walther, V. Falk, J. Kempfert, M. A. Borger, J. Fassl, M. W.A. Chu, G. Schuler, and F. W. Mohr Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation; the initial 50 patients Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2008; 33(6): 983 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Bleiziffer, W B Eichinger, I Hettich, D Ruzicka, M Wottke, R Bauernschmitt, and R Lange Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on exercise capacity in patients after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 637 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Walther, P. Simon, T. Dewey, G. Wimmer-Greinecker, V. Falk, M. T. Kasimir, M. Doss, M. A. Borger, G. Schuler, D. Glogar, et al. Transapical Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Implantation: Multicenter Experience Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-240 - I-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Garcia Fuster, V. Estevez, I. Rodriguez, S. Canovas, O. Gil, F. Hornero, and J. Martinez-Leon Prosthesis patient mismatch with latest generation supra-annular prostheses. The beginning of the end? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2007; 6(4): 462 - 469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Peterson, M. A. Borger, C. M. Feindel, and T. E. David Aortic Annular Enlargement During Aortic Valve Replacement: Improving Results With Time Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2044 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Borger, A. F. Nette, M. Maganti, and C. M. Feindel Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Valve Versus Medtronic Hancock II: A Matched Hemodynamic Comparison Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2054 - 2058. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch in the mitral position: Old concept, new evidences J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2007; 133(6): 1405 - 1408. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. M. Wagner, W. B. Eichinger, S. Bleiziffer, F. Botzenhardt, I. Gebauer, R. Guenzinger, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Influence of completely supra-annular placement of bioprostheses on exercise hemodynamics in patients with a small aortic annulus J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2007; 133(5): 1234 - 1241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Bleiziffer, W. B Eichinger, I. Hettich, R. Guenzinger, D. Ruzicka, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Grayburn Improved Surgical Outcome for Chronic Severe Aortic Regurgitation With Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Systolic Function J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 3, 2007; 49(13): 1472 - 1473. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Rahimtoola Is severe valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM) associated with a higher mortality? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., July 1, 2006; 30(1): 1 - 1. [Full Text] [PDF]