• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.51 no.3
• /
• pp.161-166
• /
• 2018

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.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.40 no.3 s.272
• /
• pp.200-208
• /
• 2007

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.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.53 no.5
• /
• pp.285-290
• /
• 2020

Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial valves (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magana and Magna Ease). Methods: In total, 216 patients (mean age, 70.0±10.5 years) who underwent AVR using stented bovine pericardial valves and had follow-up echocardiography between 3 months and 2 years (mean, 12.0±6.6 months) after surgery were enrolled. The implanted valve sizes were 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm in 32, 56, 99, and 29 patients, respectively. Results: On follow-up echocardiography, the mean transvalvular pressure gradients for the 19-mm, 21-mm, 23-mm, and 25-mm valves were 13.3±4.4, 12.6±4.2, 10.5±3.9, and 10.2±3.7 mm Hg, respectively. The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.25±0.26, 1.54±0.31, 1.81±0.41, and 1.87±0.33 ㎠, respectively. These values were smaller than those suggested by the manufacturer for the corresponding sizes. No patients had PPM, when based on the reference EOA. However, moderate (EOA index ≤0.85 ㎠/㎡) and severe (EOA index ≤0.65 ㎠/㎡) PPM was present in 56 patients (11.8%) and 9 patients (1.9%), respectively, when using the measured values. Conclusion: Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease bovine pericardial valves showed satisfactory hemodynamic performance with low rates of PPM, although the reference EOA could overestimate the true EOA for individual patients.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.53 no.6
• /
• pp.332-338
• /
• 2020

Background: Attaining an adequate effective orifice area (EOA) is definitive goal in aortic valve replacement (AVR). The simple interrupted suture (SIS) technique could be a solution to achieve this goal, but limited data are available in the literature. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic differences between the SIS and non-everting mattress suture (NMS) techniques. Methods: From our database, 215 patients who underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis were extracted to form the overall cohort. From March 2015 to November 2016, the SIS technique was used in 79 patients, while the NMS technique was used in 136 patients. Hemodynamic outcomes were evaluated, as detected by transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. On immediate postoperative echocardiography, the SIS group showed a significantly wider EOA (1.6±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.5 ㎠, p=0.007) and a lower mean pressure gradient (PG) (13.3±5.4 vs. 17.0±6.0 mm Hg, p<0.001) than the NMS group. On follow-up echocardiography, the SIS group continued to have a wider EOA (1.6±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.3 ㎠, p<0.001) and a lower mean PG (11.0±5.1 vs. 14.1±5.5 mm Hg, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in paravalvular leakage. Conclusion: The SIS technique for AVR was associated with a wider EOA and a lower mean PG. The SIS technique could be a reasonable option for AVR.