Published online before print January 9, 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.587022
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2006;113:570-576.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.
Valvular Heart Disease |
Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis
From the Departments of Cardiac Surgery (G. Tasca, Z.M., F.B., G. Troise), Cardiology (S.P., P.B.C., A.A.), and Internal Medicine (T.S.), Private Nonprofit Hospital Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy; and Research Center of Laval Hospital/Quebec Heart Institute, Laval University, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada (P.P.).
Reprint requests to Dr Giordano Tasca, UF di Cardiochirurgia, Casa di Cura Poliambulanza, Via L. Bissolati 57, 25125 Brescia, Italy. E-mail gio.tasca{at}tiscali.it
Received March 18, 2005; de novo received September 6, 2005; revision received October 3, 2005; accepted October 7, 2005.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background— Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthesis being implanted is too small in relation to body size, thus causing abnormally high transvalvular pressure gradients. The objective of this study was to examine the midterm impact of PPM on overall mortality and cardiac events after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis.
Methods and Results— The indexed EOA (EOAi) was estimated for each type and size of prosthesis being implanted in 315 consecutive patients with pure aortic stenosis. PPM was defined as an EOAi 
0.80 cm2/m2 and was correlated with overall mortality and cardiac events. PPM was present in 47% of patients. The 5-year overall survival and cardiac event-free survival were 82±3% and 75±4%, respectively, in patients with PPM compared with 93±3% and 87±4% in patients with no PPM (P0.01). In multivariate analysis, PPM was associated with a 4.2-fold (95% CI, 1.6 to 11.3) increase in the risk of overall mortality and 3.2-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 6.8) increase in the risk of cardiac events. The other independent risk factors were history of heart failure, NHYA class III-IV, severe left ventricular hypertrophy, and absence of normal sinus rhythm before operation.
Conclusions— PPM is an independent predictor of cardiac events and midterm mortality in patients with pure aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement. As opposed to other risk factors, PPM may be avoided or its severity may be reduced with the use of a preventive strategy at the time of operation.
Key Words: echocardiography • hemodynamics • prognosis • stenosis • valves
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthesis being implanted is less than that of the normal human valve.1,2 This is a frequent problem in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), especially in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), and its main hemodynamic consequence is to generate high transvalvular pressure gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves.1–7 The issue of PPM still generates much controversy with regard to its clinical relevance and, in particular, with regard to its effect on survival after operation. Whereas some authors have found that the persistence of PPM results in lower postoperative survival,8,9 others have reported that PPM and/or small prostheses have no significant impact on survival,10–13 and on this basis they concluded that PPM is not an important issue. However, the parameter used to define PPM was different from one study to the other, thus making difficult the comparison and interpretation of the results of these previous studies. To this effect, it should be emphasized that the only parameter yet demonstrated as being valid to define PPM is the prosthesis EOA indexed to the patient’s body surface area (EOAi).3–5,14–16 This index has consistently been shown to correlate with postoperative gradients as well as being predictive of adverse outcomes.3–9,14–24
Clinical Perspective p 576
The objective of this study was thus to analyze the impact of PPM, defined on the basis of EOAi, on midterm mortality and cardiac events in patients with pure AS undergoing AVR.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients
Between September 1997 and September 2003, 320 consecutive patients underwent AVR for pure AS. Hospital mortality was 1.6% (5/320), and only the 315 patients who were discharged from the hospital were included in this study. Clinical, echocardiographic, operative, and outcome data were prospectively collected in a computerized database. The data were collected as part of a larger observational study aiming to identify the independent risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing AVR. All patients had a follow-up visit at the hospital at 3 months. This visit included a physical examination, the determination of NYHA functional class, and an ECG. Thereafter, the patients were interviewed by telephone annually to assess their status. If any fatal or cardiac event occurred, these events were documented by communicating with the patient’s treating physician(s). For the purpose of the present study, we selected the patients who had undergone surgery at least 12 months before the closing date of the study (September 30, 2004), and a final telephone follow-up was conducted within 1 month after this date. The follow-up was complete in 99% (313/315) of the patients, and the mean follow-up time was 3.7±1.7 years.
Doppler-Echocardiographic Data
Preoperative echocardiographic data were obtained at our institution 0 to 7 days before operation in 94% (296/315) of patients. The Doppler-echocardiographic measurements were performed as previously described.24,25 Briefly, the dimensions of the left ventricle (LV) were assessed with 2-dimensionally guided M-mode tracings, with the measurements being made according to the recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography. Left ventricular mass (LVM) was calculated with the corrected American Society of Echocardiography formula.26 LVM was indexed to patient height with an allometric power of 2.7 to compensate for the effect of overweight or obesity on LVM indexation, and the normal values were considered <50 g/m2.7 for men and <47 g/m2.7 for women.27 Severe LV hypertrophy was considered present when the preoperative LVM index was in the 90th percentile of the studied cohort. The relative wall thickness was calculated as previously described.24,25 The LV ejection fraction was determined by the Simpson method.
End Points
Study end points were (1) overall mortality28 excluding in-hospital mortality and (2) cardiac events, defined as cardiac death, sudden death, hospital readmission for angina, heart failure, or lipothymia/syncope.
Definition of PPM
Previous studies have shown that PPM as well as its consequences on morbidity and mortality can be predicted at the time of operation by calculating the projected EOAi.5,8,9,16,23 In the present study the projected EOAi was derived from the published normal in vivo EOA values5 for each model and size of prosthesis implanted in this cohort except for the Mitroflow prosthesis (Table 1). Indeed, for this prosthesis model, the normal in vivo EOA values have not yet been reported. We thus used the normal EOA values established in our echocardiography laboratory from the data measured 1 year after operation in the cohort of patients with the Mitroflow prosthesis (Table 1). This information was used in the present study to determine the projected EOA of the patients who received Mitroflow prosthesis. The projected EOA was then divided by body surface area, and PPM was defined as a projected EOAi 0.8 cm2/m2. The selection of this value was based primarily on the results of previous studies.19,23 In addition, we did a preliminary analysis that confirmed that this cutoff value provides the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity to predict the studied end points.
|
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as mean±SD values and compared with a 2-tailed t test. The normality of the distributions in the 2 groups was tested by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and, when not normal, the data were log transformed. Categorical variables were expressed as percentage of total and compared with the 
2 test. Cumulative probability values of survival and cardiac event-free survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, reported as mean±SEM, and compared with the log-rank test. The effect of the preoperative and operative variables on survival and event-free survival was assessed with the Cox proportional hazard model in a stepwise manner. The variables with a probability value <0.1 were inserted in the final models. The variables tested in the models were as follows: (1) preoperative variables: age, gender, body mass index, NYHA functional class, severity of AS, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease (presence and severity: number of diseased vessels), history of myocardial infarction, LV ejection fraction, history of heart failure, arteriopathy, chronic renal insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block, LVM index, relative wall thickness ratio, presence of severe LV hypertrophy; and (2) operative variables: urgent/emergent operation, way of delivering cardioplegia, aortic cross-clamp time, bicuspid aortic valve, etiology of valve disease, coronary artery bypass graft, type of prosthesis implanted (stentless bioprosthesis, stented bioprosthesis, mechanical prosthesis), implantation of the prosthesis in supra-annular position, EOAi, PPM, aortic root replacement, isolated replacement of ascending aorta, and septal myectomy. To assess the effect of PPM on outcome variables, we developed a first model with PPM entered as a dichotomous variable (PPM: EOAi 0.8 cm2/m2 versus no PPM) and then a second model with EOAi entered as a continuous variable. The proportional hazards assumption was verified for all models. The data were statistically analyzed with the use of SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Preoperative and Operative Data
Forty-seven percent of patients had PPM, and their mean EOAi was 0.71±0.05 cm2/m2 versus 0.91±0.09 cm2/m2 in the patients with no PPM (P<0.0001). Five percent of patients had severe PPM (EOAi
0.6 cm2/m2). Tables 2 and 3
show the preoperative and operative data, respectively. When compared with patients with no PPM, patients with PPM were older and had higher body surface area, body mass index, prevalence of female gender, and proportion of 21-mm prosthesis. Conversely, patients with no PPM had a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic renal failure, and they tended to have worse preoperative LV ejection fraction.
|
|
They also had a lower relative wall thickness ratio, higher preoperative LVM, and, according, a higher prevalence of severe LV hypertrophy.
Follow-up Data
The mean follow-up time was similar in both groups (PPM: 3.9±1.7 years versus no PPM: 3.4±1.7 years; P=NS). During follow-up, 23 patients died in the PPM group versus 6 patients in the no PPM group (P<0.001). The causes of death are reported in Table 4. The 5-year cumulative survival was 82±3% in patients with PPM and 93±3% in patients with no PPM (P=0.01) (Figure 1).
|
|
During the same follow-up period, 30 patients with PPM and 11 patients with no PPM (P<0.001) had cardiac events. The 5-year event-free survival was 75±4% in the PPM group and 87±4% in the no-PPM group (P=0.005) (Figure 2). In multivariate analysis, PPM was a strong independent predictor of both overall mortality (Table 5) and cardiac events (Table 6). PPM was associated with a 4.2-fold (95% CI, 1.6 to 11.3) increase in the risk of mortality and 3.2-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 6.8) increase in the risk of cardiac events. PPM remained a strong independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.5 to 11.2) and cardiac events (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.5) when age and gender were forced into the models. A second model was developed by incorporating into the multivariate model EOAi as a continuous variable instead of PPM (Tables 5 and 6). In this model, higher EOAi (ie, lower degree of PPM) was independently associated with reduction in the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97 for 0.1 cm2/m2 increase in EOAi) and cardiac events (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.84). EOAi also remained an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98) and cardiac events (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.90) when age and gender were forced into the models. The other independent risk factors were history of heart failure and absence of normal sinus rhythm for overall mortality and severe LV hypertrophy, NYHA class III-IV, and absence of normal sinus rhythm for cardiac events.
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The major finding of this study is that PPM is a strong and independent risk factor for cardiac events and midterm mortality in patients undergoing AVR for pure AS. Indeed, the risk of cardiac events and mortality was increased &3- to 4-fold in patients with PPM as opposed to those with no PPM.
The issue of PPM still generates controversy concerning its effects on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Whereas some authors have found that the persistence of PPM results in higher incidence of cardiac events and lower survival rates,8,9,17,18,21,23 others have reported that PPM and/or small prosthesis size has no or minimal impact on morbidity and mortality.10–13
Definition of PPM
The discrepancies between these previous studies are likely due to the fact that they did not use the same parameter to define PPM. Some authors have indeed attempted to characterize PPM using the internal geometric orifice area (GOA) of the prosthesis rather than the EOA because it is more reproducible.10,11,13,28,29 The GOA is a static manufacturing specification based on the ex vivo measurement of the diameter of the prosthesis. The criteria used for its measurement unfortunately differ from one type of prosthesis to the other so that, for instance, the IGA grossly overestimates the EOA but to a much larger extent in the case of a bioprosthesis than in the case of a mechanical prosthesis (Figure 3).6 In the present study the indexed GOA varied from 1.1 to 1.9 cm2/m2 for an EOAi of 0.80 cm2/m2. Hence, the relation between GOA and EOA varies extensively depending on the type and size of prosthesis, and it has been shown that the indexed GOA cannot be used to predict postoperative gradients.16,28 Most studies using the indexed GOA have failed to find any significant relation between this parameter and adverse clinical outcomes.10,11,13,28,29 This should, however, come as no surprise because, as mentioned, the indexed GOA does not bear any relationship whatsoever to postoperative hemodynamics. In contrast, the indexed EOA has consistently been shown to correlate with postoperative gradients as well as being highly predictive of adverse outcomes.3,5,8,9,16,21–24,30
|
Impact of PPM on Cardiac Events
Our results are consistent with previous studies reporting that PPM is independently associated with a higher occurrence of cardiac events.17,18,21,23 Milano et al21 reported that the freedom of late cardiac events (new episodes of angina, congestive heart failure, or myocardial infarction) was 56±15% in patients with severe PPM (EOAi 0.60 cm2/m2), 80±5% in patients with moderate PPM (EOAi 0.90 cm2/m2 and >0.60 cm2/m2), and 94±4% in patients with no PPM (EOAi >0.90 cm2/m2). Moreover, in a recent study including 1681 patients, Ruel et al23 reported that PPM defined as an EOAi 0.80 cm2/m2 is associated with a 60% increase in the risk of congestive heart failure after AVR.
Impact of PPM on Survival
Several studies reported that PPM has a significant impact on in-hospital mortality.8,9,12 This finding may be related to the fact that patients’ LV function and hemodynamic status are more vulnerable during the early postoperative period and that an increase in afterload due to PPM may contribute to the development of irreversible LV failure, especially in patients already having depressed LV function before operation.9 In the present study the number of perioperative deaths was, however, too small to allow meaningful analysis of the impact of PPM on in-hospital mortality.
In a study of 2516 patients who underwent AVR with a stented bioprosthetic valve, Rao and colleagues8 reported that freedom from valve-related mortality at 12 years was significantly lower in patients with an indexed EOA of 0.75 cm2/m2 compared with those with a larger indexed EOA (75.5% versus 84.2%; P=0.004). However, other studies with shorter follow-up failed to demonstrate any significant impact on midterm mortality.12,18,23 The present study is thus the first study to report that PPM is an independent risk factor for midterm mortality. The absence of significant association between PPM and midterm mortality reported in previous studies may be due to the fact that, as opposed to the present study, these previous studies were performed in heterogeneous populations of patients including patients with pure AS, pure aortic insufficiency, and mixed aortic valve disease. Patients with aortic insufficiency are more likely to receive a larger valve with lower probability of having PPM, but their postoperative survival is generally lower than that of patients with AS probably because they have eccentric rather than concentric LV hypertrophy.31
Potential Mechanisms Responsible for the Adverse Effects of PPM
Mehta et al32 reported that LV hypertrophy is a strong risk factor for in-hospital mortality after AVR. In the present study the presence of severe LV hypertrophy before operation was also found to be an independent risk factor for cardiac events after AVR. Previous studies have suggested that the residual pressure overload due to PPM may hamper the regression of LV hypertrophy after AVR,19,24,33 and this may have contributed to the higher occurrence of cardiac events and deaths in the PPM group. Beyond the persistence of LV hypertrophy after AVR, other mechanisms may explain the worse outcome of patients with PPM. In this regard, Rajappan et al34 demonstrated that, in patients with AS and angiographically normal coronary arteries, the improvement of coronary flow reserve after AVR is directly dependent on the improvement of valve EOA that is achieved with AVR. Hence, the increased LV systolic pressure associated with PPM may compromise the normalization of coronary flow reserve after AVR34–36 and may thus predispose to the development of LV dysfunction and the occurrence of adverse events.
Clinical Implications
The practical implications of these findings are important given that PPM is a frequent occurrence with a prevalence of 47% in the present study, which is consistent with the results generally reported in the literature (19% to 70%).5,6,9,16 More importantly, as opposed to other risk factors for cardiac events and mortality, PPM is a modifiable risk factor that can, in large part, be avoided with the use of a prospective strategy at the time of operation.5,9,16,37 As proposed by Pibarot and Dumesnil,5 this strategy consists of the systematic calculation of the projected EOAi before the implantation of the prosthesis. If the projected EOAi is lower than the recommended value (0.8 to 0.9 cm2/m2), the surgeon may either use another type of prosthesis with a better hemodynamic profile and hence a larger EOA (eg, bileaflet mechanical valves of new generation or stentless bioprostheses)16,38,39 or perform an aortic root enlargement procedure to accommodate a larger prosthesis.37 Castro et al37 have demonstrated that this prospective strategy to avoid PPM can be applied with success. Nonetheless, it is also possible that, given the operative circumstances (eg, comorbidities, anatomy of the aortic root), the surgeon may have to accept the PPM, and if such is the case, the calculation of the projected EOAi is useful to forecast how the selected prosthesis will perform thereafter in the patient. Particular attention should be given to completely avoid PPM, ie, provide a minimum EOAi of 
0.8 to 0.9 cm2/m2, in young, physically active patients as well as in patients with depressed LV function since they are the most vulnerable to PPM.9 However, lesser values of EOAi are probably acceptable in older sedentary patients with preserved LV function. This underscores the importance of individualizing the PPM preventive strategy according to the patient’s age, level of physical activity, and status of LV function. If PPM cannot be completely avoided, however, every effort should be made to implant a prosthesis that would provide the largest possible EOA because it has been suggested that the postoperative regression of LV mass as well as the improvement of coronary flow reserve is directly related to the magnitude of valve EOA improvement achieved with AVR.30,34
Study Limitations
The number of patients with severe PPM was not sufficient to allow for separate analysis in these patients and determine whether severe PPM was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes compared with mild/moderate/no PPM. Nevertheless, the fact that the EOAi emerged as an independent predictor of adverse outcomes when entered as a continuous variable in multivariate analysis (Tables 5 and 6
) supports the notion that the adverse effects of PPM increase with its degree of severity, as suggested in previous studies.9,18,21
The body surface area may overestimate the cardiac output requirement in obese patients, and, consequently, the utilization of the EOA indexed to body surface area would then overestimate the degree of PPM in these patients. Hence, the difference between the PPM and non-PPM groups may have been overstated because of the significantly greater proportion of obese patients (49% versus 27%) in the PPM group.
Finally, this study was not of randomized design, and it is possible that unrecognized biases may have influenced the results.
Conclusion
PPM is a strong and independent predictor of cardiac events and midterm mortality in patients with pure AS undergoing AVR. As opposed to most other risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality, PPM is a modifiable risk factor that can be avoided, or its severity may be reduced with the use of a preventive strategy at the time of operation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Dr Pibarot is the holder of the Canada Research Chair in Valvular Heart Diseases, which is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We would like to thank Dr P.V. Parrella for his assistance in the statistical analysis.
Disclosures
Medtronic, St Jude Medical, Edwards Life Science, and Carbomedics companies provide (or have provided) research grants, in-kind contributions (prosthetic valves for in vitro studies), or consultant fees to Dr Pibarot. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978; 58: 20–24.
2. Rahimtoola SH, Murphy E. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch: a long-term sequela. Br Heart J. 1981; 45: 331–335.
3. Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Validation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 16: 637–643.[Abstract]
4. Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992; 6: S34–S38.
5. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1131–1141.
6. Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Negri A, Manfredi J. The concept of patient-prosthesis mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13: S59–S62.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Patient-prosthesis mismatch and the predictive use of indexed effective orifice area: is it relevant? Cardiac Surg Today. 2003; 1: 43–51.
8. Rao V, Jamieson WRE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival following aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2000; 102: III-5–III-9.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003; 108: 983–988.
10. Fernandez J, Chen C, Laub GW, Anderson WA, Brdlik OB, Murphy MS, McGrath LB. Predictive value of prosthetic valve area index for early and late clinical results after valve replacement with the St Jude Medical valve prosthesis. Circulation. 1996; 94: II-109–II-112.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, With J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 119: 963–974.
12. Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, Joyner CD, Fremes SE, Morgan CD, Mitoff PRR, Goldman BS. Patient prosthesis mismatch is rare after aortic valve replacement: valve size may be irrelevant. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73: 1822–1829.
13. Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WR, Birkmeyer NJ, Lemmer JH, Miller DC, Butchart EG, Rizzoli G, Yacoub M, Chai A. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 126: 783–793.
14. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Lemieux M, Honos G, Durand LG. Usefulness of the indexed effective orifice area at rest in predicting an increase in gradient during maximum exercise in patients with a bioprosthesis in the aortic valve position. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83: 542–546.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J Cartier P, Honos G, Durand LG. Hemodynamic and physical performance during maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic valve: comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34: 1609–1617.
16. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Métras J, Lemieux M. Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S265–S268.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol. 1996; 12: 379–387.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Métras J, Durand LG. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity, and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998; 7: 211–218.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, Doty DB, Westaby S. Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 11: 114–120.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Girard SE, Miller FA Jr, Montgomery S, Edwards WD, Tazelaar HD, Malouf JF, Seward JB, Orszulak TA. Outcome of reoperation for aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Am J Cardiol. 2001; 87: 111–114.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Milano AD, De CM, Mecozzi G, D’Alfonso A, Scioti G, Nardi C, Bertolotti U. Clinical outcome in patients with 19-mm and 21-mm St. Jude aortic prostheses: comparison at long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73: 37–43.
22. Vincentelli A, Susen S, Le Tourneau T, Six I, Fabre O, Juthier F, Bauters A, Decoene C, Goudemand J, Prat A, Jude B. Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 343–349.
23. Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Bedard P, Hendry PJ, Lam BK, Burwash IG, Goldstein WG, Brais MP, Keon WJ, Mesana TG. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004; 127: 149–159.
24. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Dalla Tomba M, Magna Z, Troise G, Quaini E. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79: 505–510.
25. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Amaducci A, Mhagna Z, Troise G, Quaini E. Mass regression in aortic stenosis after valve replacement with small size pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003; 76: 1107–1113.
26. Devereux RB, Alonso DR, Lutas EM, Gottlieb GJ, Campo E, Sachs I, Reichek N. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: Comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol. 1986; 57: 450–458.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. De Simone G, Devereux RB, Daniels SR, Koren MJ, Meyer RA, Laragh JH. Effect of growth on variability of left ventricular mass: assessment of allometric signals in adults and children and their capacity to predict cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 25: 1056–1062.[Abstract]
28. Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, Blackstone EH. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2005; 111: 3221–3229.
29. Knez I, Rienmüller R, Maier R, Rehak P, Schrottner B, Machler H, Anelli-Monti M, Rigler B. Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001; 19: 797–805.
30. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, Dalla Tomba M, Magna Z, Troise G, Quaini E. Impact of the improvement of valve area achieved with aortic valve replacement on the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79: 1291–1296.
31. Kvidal P, Bergstrom R, Horte LG, Stahle E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35: 747–756.
32. Mehta RH, Bruckman D, Das, Tsai T, Russman P, Karavite D, Monaghan H, Sonnad S, Shea MJ, Eagle KA, Deeb GM. Implications of increased left ventricular mass index on in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 122: 919–928.
33. Fuster RG, Montero Argudo JA, Albarova OG, Sos FH, Lopez SC, Codoner MB, Buendia Minano JA, Rodriguez Albarran I. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005; 27: 441–449.
34. Rajappan K, Rimoldi OE, Camici PG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ, Sheridan DJ. Functional changes in coronary microcirculation after valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2003; 107: 3170–3175.
35. Rajappan K, Rimoldi OE, Dutka DP, Ariff B, Pennell DJ, Sheridan DJ, Camici PG. Factors influencing coronary microcirculatory function in patients with aortic stenosis after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2002; 106: II-640.
36. Nemes A, Forster T, Csanady M. Decreased aortic distensibility and coronary flow velocity reserve in patients with significant aortic valve stenosis with normal epicardial coronary arteries. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004; 13: 567–573.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Castro LJ, Arcidi JMJ, Audrey L, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 31–36.
38. Bach DS, Sakwa MP, Goldbach M, Petracek MR, Emery RW, Mohr FW. Hemodynamics and early clinical performance of the St. Jude Medical Regent mechanical aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 2003–2009.
39. Gelsomino S, Morocutti G, Frassani R, Da Col P, Carella R, Livi U. Usefulness of the Cryolife O’Brien stentless supraannular aortic valve to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in the small aortic root. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1845–1851.
 |
|
 |
|
  V. A. Mannacio, V. De Amicis, L. Di Tommaso, F. Iorio, and C. Vosa Influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on exercise-induced arrhythmias: A further aspect after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2009; 138(3): 632 - 638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Urso, R. Sadaba, and G. Aldamiz-Echevarria Is patient-prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, September 1, 2009; 9(3): 510 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Monin Prosthesis-patient mismatch: myth or reality? Heart, June 1, 2009; 95(11): 948 - 952. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-A. Clavel, J. G. Webb, P. Pibarot, L. Altwegg, E. Dumont, C. Thompson, R. De Larochelliere, D. Doyle, J.-B. Masson, S. Bergeron, et al. Comparison of the Hemodynamic Performance of Percutaneous and Surgical Bioprostheses for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1883 - 1891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W.R. E. Jamieson, E. Germann, J. Ye, F. Chan, A. Cheung, J. S. MacNab, G. J. Fradet, E. A. Stanford, L. A. Bryson, and S. V. Lichtenstein Effect of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival With Mitral Valve Replacement: Assessment to 15 Years Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2009; 87(4): 1135 - 1142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Mohty, J. G. Dumesnil, N. Echahidi, P. Mathieu, F. Dagenais, P. Voisine, and P. Pibarot Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 6, 2009; 53(1): 39 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Vahanian, B. Iung, L. Piérard, R. Dion, and J. Pepper CHAPTER 21 Valvular Heart Disease ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Narayan, B. C. Reeves, S. I.A. Rizvi, K. Shokrollahi, H. Ismail, G. D. Angelini, A. Nightingale, and M. Caputo Hemodynamic Evaluation and Midterm Outcome of Aortic Valve Replacement With Size 19 Perimount Prosthetic Valve Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2008; 86(6): 1799 - 1803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Mascherbauer, R Rosenhek, C Fuchs, E Pernicka, U Klaar, C Scholten, M Heger, G Wollenek, G Maurer, and H Baumgartner Moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch after valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis has no impact on short-term and long-term mortality Heart, December 1, 2008; 94(12): 1639 - 1645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. B. Chambers, R. Rajani, D. Parkin, H. M. Rimington, C. I. Blauth, G. E. Venn, C. P. Young, and J. C. Roxburgh Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: Early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2008; 136(5): 1142 - 1148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. T.L. Chiam and C. E. Ruiz Percutaneous Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Assessing Results, Judging Outcomes, and Planning Trials: The Interventionalist Perspective J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., August 1, 2008; 1(4): 341 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Roedler, M. Czerny, J. Neuhauser, D. Zimpfer, R. Gottardi, D. Dunkler, E. Wolner, and M. Grimm Mechanical Aortic Valve Prostheses in the Small Aortic Root: Top Hat Versus Standard CarboMedics Aortic Valve Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 64 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kohsaka, S. Mohan, S. Virani, V.-V. Lee, A. Contreras, G. J. Reul, and S. A. Coulter Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2008; 135(5): 1076 - 1080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Zegdi, V. Ciobotaru, M. Noghin, G. Sleilaty, A. Lafont, C. Latremouille, A. Deloche, and J.-N. Fabiani Is it reasonable to treat all calcified stenotic aortic valves with a valved stent? Results from a human anatomic study in adults. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 5, 2008; 51(5): 579 - 584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Enriquez-Sarano, V. T. Nkomo, and H. Michelena Principles and Practice of Echocardiography in Cardiac Surgery Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 315 - 348. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Qizilbash, P. Couture, and A. Denault Impact of Perioperative Transesophageal Echocardiography in Aortic Valve Replacement Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, December 1, 2007; 11(4): 288 - 300. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J.-L. Monin, M. Monchi, M. E.W. Kirsch, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, C. Chauvel, D. Metz, C. Adams, J.-P. Quere, P. Gueret, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2007; 28(21): 2620 - 2626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Dhareshwar, T. M. Sundt III, J. A. Dearani, H. V. Schaff, D. J. Cook, and T. A. Orszulak Aortic root enlargement: What are the operative risks? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2007; 134(4): 916 - 924. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Pibarot and J. G Dumesnil Prevention of valve prosthesis--patient mismatch before aortic valve replacement: does it matter and is it feasible? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 549 - 551. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Vanden Eynden, D. Bouchard, I. El-Hamamsy, A. Butnaru, P. Demers, M. Carrier, L. P. Perrault, J.-C. Tardif, and M. Pellerin Effect of Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis on Severity of Mitral Regurgitation Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2007; 83(4): 1279 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. R. Bridges, S. M. O'Brien, J. C. Cleveland, E. B. Savage, J. S. Gammie, F. H. Edwards, E. D. Peterson, and F. L. Grover Association between indices of prosthesis internal orifice size and operative mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1012 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. M. Bolman III Survival After Mitral Valve Replacement: Does the Valve Type and/or Size Make a Difference? Circulation, March 20, 2007; 115(11): 1336 - 1338. [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]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||