Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

Tsubota, Hideki; Sakaguchi, Genichi; Arakaki, Ryoko; Marui, Akira

doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.09.026

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mitral PPM may adversely affect long-term survival of patients with regurgitation of the mitral valve. 18 We found that the incidence rate of mitral PPM using the 3D method was lower than that using the 2D method. Therefore, the 3D method may be useful in early identification of PPM perioperatively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…However, in the 3D method, acquisition of an en face view of the LVOT might be more precise because it may exclude the assumption of circularity. 18 We recorded the R-EOA of 18 patients using bioprosthetic valves from commercial records. We found that the difference between EOA values measured by the 3D method and R-EOA was smaller than that between EOA values measured by the 2D method and R-EOA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the 3D method, acquisition of an en face view of the LVOT might be more precise because it may exclude the assumption of circularity. 18…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Zhou

Wei

et al. 2021

J Int Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study compared the continuity equation-based effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valves between two-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Methods Thirty-four patients without major aortic valve abnormalities underwent mitral valve replacement surgery. The EOAs of prosthetic mitral valves were calculated using the continuity equation with 2D and 3D TEE. For 18/34 patients using a biological valve prosthesis, the EOA of the prosthesis was obtained from commercial records. Results The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves significantly varied between the 2D and 3D methods (2.22 ± 0.71 vs 2.35 ± 0.70 cm2, n = 34). The area of the diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract as determined by the 3D method was significantly higher than that by the 2D method (mean difference: −0.14 ± 0.20 cm2), with 95% coherence boundaries of −0.53 and 0.25 cm2. The regression equation for the EOA by 3D and 2D TEE was y = 0.27 + 0.94x, with a good correlation. Conclusions The EOA of prosthetic mitral valves is underestimated using the 2D TEE method compared with the 3D TEE method. The 3D-TEE method has the advantage of higher precision over the 2D TEE method, and it may be helpful for better assessment of prosthetic mitral valves intraoperatively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Zhou

Wei

et al. 2021

J Int Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The influence of a higher mPG for prosthetic mitral valves on late survival remains controversial. We previously reported that the mitral prosthesis‐patient mismatch after MVR did not adversely affect long‐term survival in elderly patients 18 . Since bioprosthetic valves were selected for elderly patients, the average age of this study population was high (74.1 years).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…We previously reported that the mitral prosthesis-patient mismatch after MVR did not adversely affect longterm survival in elderly patients. 18 Since bioprosthetic valves were selected for elderly patients, the average age of this study population was high (74.1 years). Although this may be because valve selection did not affect late survival, the postoperative mPG of the porcine valve was significantly higher than that of the bovine valve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position

Tsubota

Sakaguchi

Arakaki

et al. 2021

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are no reports of midterm outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a 25‐mm bioprosthesis in a large series of patients. This study aimed to examine perioperative and midterm outcomes of bioprosthetic valve choice, porcine or bovine pericardial, in the mitral position, focusing on 25‐mm valves. Methods From 2007 to 2018, 467 patients received a mitral bioprosthesis, with or without concomitant procedures. Of these, 111 (23.8%) were porcine, and 356 (76.2%) were bovine pericardial, and 219 patients (46.9%) received a 25‐mm valve. A propensity‐matched cohort of 192 patients was used for outcome analyses. The influence of the valve type on midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death was assessed. Similarly, subanalysis stratified by valve size was conducted. Results In matched patients, there were no differences in midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death between the two groups (log‐rank test; p = .268 and p = .097, respectively). There were no differences in midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death between the 25‐mm valve and larger valve (log‐rank test; p = .563 and p = .597, respectively). The Cox proportional‐hazards model revealed that the valve type and 25‐mm valve did not affect midterm survival (p = .487 and p = .375, respectively) and incidence of cardiac death (p = .678 and p = .562, respectively). Conclusions The choice of a porcine or bovine pericardial bioprosthesis does not affect midterm survival and cardiac death. The 25‐mm valves, whether bovine or porcine, could be an appropriate alternative when the patient's body size is small.

show abstract

Roving Pen

Hinduja

2021

Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

Comparison of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position

Roving Pen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About