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 Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bolman, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bolman, R. M., III Related Collections Other Treatment

(Circulation. 2007;115:1336-1338.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Survival After Mitral Valve Replacement

Does the Valve Type and/or Size Make a Difference?

R. Morton Bolman, III, MD

From the Division of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to R.M. Bolman III, MD, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston MA 02115. E-mail rbolmanIII@partners.org

Key Words: Editorials • mitral valve • survival • valves

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

The surgical replacement of diseased heart valves is based on the premise that the prosthesis chosen to replace a stenotic or insufficient valve will have a beneficial impact on the patient’s heart function, taking into account the risks of surgery and the recognized complications of prosthetic heart valves. It is well established that mitral valve replacement (MVR) is associated with higher short- and long-term mortality than mitral valve repair.^1,2 Although the exact mechanism for this discrepancy is unknown, it increases the importance of repairing valves whenever possible and, when MVR is necessary, intervening to prevent prosthesis- and/or patient-related factors that may lead to less favorable postoperative outcomes.

Article p 1417

A growing literature has identified aortic valve patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement. Studies have suggested that aortic PPM may be accompanied by lower rates and absolute degree of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Some authors have linked incomplete regression of left ventricular hypertrophy to more postoperative cardiac events and worse long-term survival.^3–7 This linkage is controversial, however; other authors suggest that PPM is of less importance after aortic valve replacement and indeed that valve size may not matter.⁸ Many fewer data are available regarding PPM after MVR.

In this issue of Circulation, Magne et al⁹ investigate the impact of PPM on survival after MVR. The authors hypothesize that the effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic valves is often small relative to the patient’s size, thus causing a mismatch between valve EOA and flow across the valve. As . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]