Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지

Small Aortic Annulus in Aortic Valve Replacement; Comparison between Aortic Annular Enlargement Group and Patient-prosthesis Mismatch Group

협소한 대동맥판륜 환자에서의 대동맥판막 치환술; 대동맥판륜 확장술군과 환자-인공판막 부조화군의 비교

  • Kim, Jae-Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong General Hospital) ;
  • Oh, Sam-Sae (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong General Hospital) ;
  • Yie, Kil-Soo (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong General Hospital) ;
  • Shin, Sung-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong General Hospital) ;
  • Baek, Man-Jong (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Guro Hospital, College of Medicine, Korea University) ;
  • Na, Chan-Young (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong General Hospital)
  • Published : 2007.03.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on the clinical outcome following aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial. This study compared the surgical outcomes of AVR between patients with a patient-prosthesis mismatch and those having undergone an aortic annular enlargement. Material and Method: Six hundred and twenty seven adult patients, who underwent AVR with stented bioprosthetic or mechanical valves, between January 1996 and February 2006, were evaluated. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) ${\leq}0.85cm^2/m^2$, and Severe if the iEOA${\leq}0.65cm^2/m^2$ PPM was present in 103 (16.4%, PPM group) patients, and severe in 11 (1.8%, SPPM group). During the period of the study, 21 patients underwent an AVR with annular enlargement (AE group). Result: The mean iEOA of the AE group was larger than that of the PPM group ($0.95\;vs.\;0.76cm^2/m^2,\;p=0.00$). The AE group had longer CPB, ACC and operation times than the PPM group, and showed a tendency toward higher operative mortality (14.3% vs. 2.9%, p=0.06). The SPPM group had higher AV pressure gradients (peak/mean) than the AE group (72/45 mmHg vs. 38/25 mmHg, p=0.02/0.06) and suffered more AV related events (AV reoperation or severe aortic stenosis)(45.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.03). LV masses were not regressed in the patients who experienced an AV related event. Conclusion: During AVR in patients with a small aortic annulus, annular enlargement should be carefully applied taking into account the high risk of operative mortality due to annular enlargement and co-morbidities of patients. Aortic annular enlargement; however, should be considered as an alternative method in patients expected to have a severe PPM after an AVR.

배경: 대동맥판막 치환술 후 발생하는 환자-인공판막 부조화(patient-prosthesis mismatch, PPM)가 환자의 경과에 어떠한 영향을 주는가에 대해서는 아직 논란의 여지가 있다. 이 연구는 대동맥판막 치환술 후 PPM이 발생한 환자군과 PPM을 예방하기 위해 대동맥판륜 확장술을 시행한 환자군 간의 수술 결과와 경과를 비교해 보았다. 대상 및 방법: 1996년 1월부터 2006년 2월까지 stent가 있는 조직판막 혹은 기계판막을 이용하여 대동맥판막 치환술을 시행 받은 627명의 성인 환자를 연구대상으로 하였다. 치환된 대동맥판막의 indexed effective orifice area (iEOA)가 $0.85cm^2/m^2$ 이하인 경우를 PPM으로 정의 하였고 $0.65cm^2/m^2$ 이하는 심한 PPM으로 정의하였다 PPM은 103명(16.4%, PPM군)에서 발생하였고 심한 PPM은 11명(1.8%, SPPM군)에서 발생하였다. 동일한 연구 기간 동안 대동맥판륜 확장술을 시행 받은 환자(Annular Enlargement군, AE)는 모두 21명이었다. 결과: AE군의 평균 iEOA는 PPM군보다 더 컸다($0.95\;vs.\;0.76cm^2/m^2,\;p=0.00$). AE군은 PPM군보다 심폐바이패스 시간, 심장허혈 시간 및 수술 시간이 더 길었으며 수술 사망률이 더 높은 경향을 보였다(14.3% vs. 2.9%, p=0.06). 술 후 가장 최근에 시행한 심초음파 검사에서 SPPM군은 대동맥판막 판구 압력차(최고/평균)가 AE군보다 더 높게 나타났으며(72/45 mmHg vs. 38/25 mmHg, p=0.02/0.06), 대동맥판막 관련 문제(대동맥판막 재치환술 혹은 심한 대동맥판막 협착)가 더 많이 발생하였다(45.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.03). 또한 대동맥판막 관련 문제가 발생한 환자들에서는 좌심실 심근량 감축(regression)을 관찰할 수 없었다. 결론: 협소한 대동맥판륜을 가진 환자에서 대동맥판륜 확장술의 시행여부는 대동맥판륜 확장술 자체의 위험도와 환자 상태 및 동반 질환 등을 함께 고려하여 신중히 결정하여야 한다. 하지만 대동맥판막 치환술 후 심한 PPM이 예상되는 환자에서는 대동맥판륜 확장술이 대안으로 이용될 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Castro LJ, Arcidi JM, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:31-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03680-9
  2. Okuyama H, Hashimoto K, Kurosawa H, Tanaka K, Sakamoto Y, Shiratori K. Midterm results of Manouguian double valve replacement: comparison with standard double valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129: 869-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.10.026
  3. Kitamura M, Satoh M, Hachida M, Endo M, Hashimoto A, Koyanagi H. Aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus with or without annular enlargement. J Heart Valve Dis 1996;5(Suppl III):S289-93
  4. Sommers KE, David TE. Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargement of the aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1608-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00127-6
  5. Urbanski PP. Complete aortic root replacement in patients with small aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:725-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03436-1
  6. Dellgren G, Feindel CM, Bos J, et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Toronto SPV: long-term clinical and hemodynamic results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002;21:698-702 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(02)00029-5
  7. Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, et al. Are stentless vlaves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:767-78 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03338-0
  8. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003; 108:983-8 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000093723.57673.9F
  9. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, et al. 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;79:1291-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.09.002
  10. Rao V, Jamieson E, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2000;102(SuppI III):III 5-9 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.102.1.5
  11. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J, 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;7:211-8
  12. Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:149-59 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.043
  13. Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, et al. Patient prosthesis mismatch is rare after aortic valve replacement: valve size may be irrelevant. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73: 1822-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03582-8
  14. Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:963-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70091-2
  15. Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, Blackstone EH. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2005;111:3221-9 https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.505248
  16. Badano L, Mocchegiani R, Bertoli D, et al. Normal echocardiographic characteristics of the Sorin bicarbon bileaflet prosthetic heart valve in the mitral and aortic positions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1997;10:632-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-7317(97)70026-9
  17. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58:20-4 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.58.1.20
  18. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Prosthesis-patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: the evidence continues to accumulate. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:952-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.12.032
  19. Sawant D, Singh AK, Feng WC, Bert AA, Rotenberg F St. Jude medical cardiac valves in small aortic root: Follow-up to sixteen years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:499-509 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70362-3
  20. Bucerius J, Gummert JF, Borger MA, et al. Stroke after cardiac surgery: a risk factor analysis of 16,184 consecutive adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:472-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04370-9