A Retrospective Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes between Two Differently Designed Aortic Bioprostheses for Small Aortic Annuli

Kim, Do Jung; Lee, Sak; Joo, Hyun‐Chel; Youn, Young‐Nam; Yoo, Kyung-Jong; Lee, Seung Hyun

doi:10.3390/jcm10051063

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The transprosthetic gradients, however, remain the same over time in a mechanical prosthesis. 24 Although the surgeon must strive to implant the largest valve possible if PPM is suspected in a biological prosthesis, if this is not possible, then a mechanical valve, a sutureless valve implantation, or a root enlargement procedure should be considered. The root enlargement procedure is a debated contemporary issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis

Matkovic,

Aleksic,

Bilbija

et al. 2023

Texas Heart Institute Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement. Methods This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area. Results The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups. Conclusion Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%