Journal of Chest Surgery

  • 제51권3호
  • /
  • Pages.161-166
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2765-1606(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-1614(eISSN)
대한심장혈관흉부외과학회 (The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement

  • Nardi, Paolo (Cardiac Surgery Division, Tor Vergata University Policlinic of Rome) ;
  • Russo, Marco (Cardiac Surgery Division, Tor Vergata University Policlinic of Rome) ;
  • Saitto, Guglielmo (Cardiac Surgery Division, Tor Vergata University Policlinic of Rome) ;
  • Ruvolo, Giovanni (Cardiac Surgery Division, Tor Vergata University Policlinic of Rome)
  • 투고 : 2017.12.18
  • 심사 : 2018.02.07
  • 발행 : 2018.06.05
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a controversial issue in current clinical practice. PPM has been reported to have a negative impact on patients' prognosis after aortic valve replacement in several studies, showing increased all-cause and cardiac mortality. Moreover, a close relationship has recently been described between PPM and structural valve deterioration in biological prostheses. In patients at risk for PPM, several issues should be considered, and in the current era of cardiac surgery, preoperative planning should consider the different types of valves available and the various surgical techniques that can be used to prevent PPM. The present paper analyses the state of the art of the PPM issue.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58:20-4. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.58.1.20
  2. 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;36:1131-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00859-7
  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;16:637-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(90)90355-S
  4. 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.
  5. 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.0000085167.67105.32
  6. Milano AD, de Carlo M, Mecozzi G, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03306-9
  7. Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2000;102(19 Suppl 3):III5-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.102.1.5
  8. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol 1996;12:379-87.
  9. Mohty D, Malouf JF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in the aortic position. Circulation 2006;113:420-6. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.546754
  10. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Metras 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.
  11. Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WR, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:783-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(03)00591-9
  12. Daneshvar SA, Rahimtoola SH. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1123-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.05.035
  13. Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Munfakh NA, Pasque MK, Damiano RJ Jr. POINT: prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137:278-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.09.059
  14. Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, Doty D, Westaby S. Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(4 Suppl 1):114-20.
  15. Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Circulation 2006;113:570-6. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.587022
  16. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1518-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs003
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Kim JH, Na CY, Oh SS, Yie KS, Shinn SH, Baek MJ. Small aortic annulus in aortic valve replacement; comparison between aortic annular enlargement group and patient-prosthesis mismatch group. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;40:200-8.
  20. Flameng W, Rega F, Vercalsteren M, Herijgers P, Meuris B. Antimineralization treatment and patient-prosthesis mismatch are major determinants of the onset and incidence of structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:1219-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.03.025
  21. Bavaria JE, Desai ND, Cheung A, et al. The St Jude Medical Trifecta aortic pericardial valve: results from a global, multicenter, prospective clinical study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:590-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.12.087
  22. Fiegl K, Deutsch MA, Rondak IC, Lange R, Guenzinger R. Matched comparison of two different biological prostheses for complete supra-annular aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;63:459-66.
  23. Minardi G, Pergolini A, Zampi G, et al. St. Jude Trifecta versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valves for the treatment of aortic stenosis: comparison of early Doppler-echocardiography and hemodynamic performance. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2013;80:126-32.
  24. Modi A, Pousios D, Sadeque S, et al. Early in-vivo hemodynamic comparison of supra-annular aortic bioprostheses: Trifecta versus Perimount Magna Ease. J Heart Valve Dis 2014;23:325-32.
  25. Phan K, Ha H, Phan S, Misfeld M, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Early hemodynamic performance of the third generation St Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:1567-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.043
  26. Tasca G, Vismara R, Fiore GB, et al. Fluid-dynamic results of in vitro comparison of four pericardial bioprostheses implanted in small porcine aortic roots. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;47:e62-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu446

피인용 문헌

  1. Aortic valve-in-valve implantation requiring valve fracturing via a subclavian access : new insights with a word of caution vol.20, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2459/jcm.0000000000000861
  2. Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: Results With Three Different Bioprostheses vol.14, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1556984519826430