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

This Article 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dumesnil, J.G. Articles by Yoganathan, A.P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dumesnil, J.G. Articles by Yoganathan, A.P.

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;6:S34-S38
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients

^a Québec Heart Institute, Laval University, Québec, Canada
^b Cardiovascular Fluid Mechanics Laboratory, School of Chemical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga., USA

Recent studies suggest that all prosthetic valves are at least mildly stenotic and may cause relatively high pressure gradients despite normal prosthesis function; such gradients could be due to a mismatch between prosthesis effective orifice area and patient's body size. In order to address this problem more directly, we derived, using a physiologic pulse duplicator system, the theoretical relations between transprosthetic pressure gradients and prosthesis effective orifice areas indexed for body surface area, assuming a normal resting cardiac index of 3.0 l/min m^–2 and 10–50% increases in stroke volume such as may occur during maximal upright exercise. These exponential relations show that a small decrease in indexed effective orifice area produces a large increase in pressure gradient, and that the indexed effective orifice area should ideally be not less than 0.9–1.0 cm²/m² for aortic prostheses and 1.3–1.5 cm²/m² for mitral prostheses in order to minimize postoperative gradients. Thus, high postoperative gradients do not necessarily indicate intrinsic prosthesis dysfunction but may also be due to patient prosthesis mismatch. Intrinsic prosthetic performance is best assessed by comparing in vivo calculated effective orifice areas to in vitro measurements for same type and size of prosthesis. Patient prosthesis mismatch can be avoided by calculating before operation the projected indexed effective orifice area of the prosthesis being implanted.

Key Words: Heart valve prosthesis • Valve prosthesis hemodynamics • Aortic valve surgery • Mitral valve surgery

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Tanne, L. Kadem, R. Rieu, and P. Pibarot Hemodynamic impact of mitral prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary hypertension: an in silico study J Appl Physiol, December 1, 2008; 105(6): 1916 - 1926. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. W. Akins, B. Travis, and A. P. Yoganathan Energy loss for evaluating heart valve performance. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2008; 136(4): 820 - 833. [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]

				B.-K. Lam, V. Chan, P. Hendry, M. Ruel, R. Masters, P. Bedard, B. Goldstein, F. Rubens, and T. Mesana The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2007; 133(6): 1464 - 1473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Magne, P. Mathieu, J. G. Dumesnil, D. Tanne, F. Dagenais, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Survival After Mitral Valve Replacement Circulation, March 20, 2007; 115(11): 1417 - 1425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Pibarot and J G Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention Heart, August 1, 2006; 92(8): 1022 - 1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Dumesnil and P. Pibarot Prosthesis-patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: The evidence continues to accumulate J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 952 - 955. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tasca, Z. Mhagna, S. Perotti, P. B. Centurini, T. Sabatini, A. Amaducci, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. D. Tomba, E. Quiani, et al. Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis Circulation, January 31, 2006; 113(4): 570 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Li, J. G. Dumesnil, P. Mathieu, and P. Pibarot Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 5, 2005; 45(7): 1034 - 1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Blais, J. G. Dumesnil, R. Baillot, S. Simard, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Short-Term Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement Circulation, August 26, 2003; 108(8): 983 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Gelsomino, G. Morocutti, R. Frassani, P. Da Col, R. Carella, and U. Livi Usefulness of the cryolife o'brien stentless suprannular aortic valve to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in the small aortic root J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 5, 2002; 39(11): 1845 - 1851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]