No abstract

The concept/phenomenon of valve prosthesis/patient mismatch (VP-PM), described in 1978, has stood the test of time. From that time to 2011, VP-PM has received a great deal of attention but studies have come to varying conclusions. This is largely because of the determination of prosthetic heart valve area [called effective orifice area index (EOAi)] by projection rather than by actual measurement, variable criteria to assess severity of EOAi and the timing of determination of EOAi. All prosthetic heart valves have some degree of VP-PM which must be placed in a proper clinical perspective. This can be done by determining its effects on function and outcomes. For mortality one needs to focus especially on severe/critical degree of VP-PM and determine the cause of death was due to VP-PM. For the period "beyond 2011" a road map is suggested that will have uniformity of assessment of VP-PM and a focusing on the important goals of VP-PM.

Author contributions: Shriki J served as the primary author and wrote and finalized the manuscript; Rongey C and Ghosh B researched and wrote the clinical histories of the patients presented; Daneshvar S obtained echocardiographic images and contributed to the sections of the manuscript discussing the echocardiographic appearance of caseous mitral annular calcifications; Colletti PM contributed to the discussion regarding the cardiac MR findings in the patients who were discussed; Farvid A assisted in the discussion of the clinical significance of mitral annular calcifications, and obtained IRB approval for this review; Wilcox A assisted in editing and finalizing the manuscript. AbstractThe authors report herein a series of 3 patients with caseous mitral annular calcifications (MAC). One of the patients presented with mass-like, caseous MAC as an incidental finding on a staging computed tomography (CT) for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Another patient presented with a nodule on a chest radiograph, which was later found on CT to be due to caseous MAC. In the third patient, caseous MAC was initially detected on echocardiography, and was further evaluated with CT and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. In all three patients, the appearances posed a diagnostic dilemma. The appearance of caseous MAC is dissimilar to non-caseous MAC and is usually seen as an ovoid, mass-like structure, with homogeneous hyperattenuation, representing a liquefied form of calcium and proteinaceous fluid. This homogeneous center is surrounded by peripheral, shell-like calcifications. Caseous MAC is likely an under-recognized entity and may present a diagnostic dilemma at CT, magnetic resonance imaging, or echocardiography.

No abstract