HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Marc Ruel Alexander Kulik Thierry G. Mesana Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ruel, M. Articles by Burwash, I. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ruel, M. Articles by Burwash, I. G. Related Collections Valve disease Related Article

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:1036-1044
© 2006 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: Effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression

^a Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
^b Department of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
^c Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Received for publication August 1, 2005; revisions received October 13, 2005; accepted for publication October 20, 2005.

^_* Address for reprints: Marc Ruel, MD, MPH, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin St, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4W7 (Email: mruel{at}ottawaheart.ca).

OBJECTIVE: The effect of prosthesis–patient mismatch on clinical outcome and left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement remains controversial. Data on whether the clinical effect of prosthesis–patient mismatch depends on left ventricular function at the time of aortic valve replacement are lacking. This study examined the long-term clinical and echocardiographic effects of prosthesis–patient mismatch in patients with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction at the time of aortic valve replacement.

METHODS: Preoperative and serial postoperative echocardiograms were performed in 805 adults who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1990 and 2003 and who were subsequently followed up in a dedicated valve clinic (follow-up, mean ± SD, 5.5 ± 3.5 years; maximum, 14.2 years). Preoperative left ventricular function was defined as normal (ejection fraction 50%) in 548 patients and impaired (ejection fraction <50%) in 257 patients.

RESULTS: Patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and prosthesis–patient mismatch (indexed effective orifice area 0.85 cm²/m²) had a decreased overall late survival (hazard ratio, 2.8; P = .03), decreased freedom from heart failure symptoms or heart failure death (odds ratio of 5.1 at 3 years after aortic valve replacement; P = .009), and diminished left ventricular mass regression compared with patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and no prosthesis–patient mismatch. These effects of prosthesis–patient mismatch were not observed in patients with normal preoperative left ventricular function.

CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis–patient mismatch at an indexed effective orifice area of 0.85 cm²/m² or less after aortic valve replacement primarily affects patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and results in decreased survival, lower freedom from heart failure, and incomplete left ventricular mass regression. Patients with impaired left ventricular function represent a critical population in whom prosthesis–patient mismatch should be avoided at the time of aortic valve replacement.

Related Article

Prosthesis–patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: The evidence continues to accumulate

Jean G. Dumesnil and Philippe Pibarot
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2006 131: 952-955. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Masuda, H. Kado, Y. Ando, A. Shiose, T. Nakano, K. Fukae, Y. Tanoue, and R. Tominaga Intermediate-term results after the aortic valve replacement using bileaflet mechanical prosthetic valve in children. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 34(1): 42 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kohsaka, S. Mohan, S. Virani, V.-V. Lee, A. Contreras, G. J. Reul, and S. A. Coulter Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2008; 135(5): 1076 - 1080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Bleiziffer, W B Eichinger, I Hettich, D Ruzicka, M Wottke, R Bauernschmitt, and R Lange Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on exercise capacity in patients after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 637 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Nozohoor, J. Nilsson, C. Luhrs, A. Roijer, and J. Sjogren Influence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Diastolic Heart Failure After Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2008; 85(4): 1310 - 1317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik, M. Al-Saigh, V. Chan, R. G. Masters, P. Bedard, B.-K. Lam, F. D. Rubens, P. J. Hendry, T. G. Mesana, and M. Ruel Enlargement of the Small Aortic Root During Aortic Valve Replacement: Is There a Benefit? Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2008; 85(1): 94 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Stented Pericardial and Porcine Valves Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 857 - 894. [Full Text]

				J.-L. Monin, M. Monchi, M. E.W. Kirsch, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, C. Chauvel, D. Metz, C. Adams, J.-P. Quere, P. Gueret, et al. Low-gradient aortic stenosis: impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2007; 28(21): 2620 - 2626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. Peterson, M. A. Borger, C. M. Feindel, and T. E. David Aortic Annular Enlargement During Aortic Valve Replacement: Improving Results With Time Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2044 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch in the mitral position: Old concept, new evidences J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2007; 133(6): 1405 - 1408. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pibarot and J. G Dumesnil Prevention of valve prosthesis--patient mismatch before aortic valve replacement: does it matter and is it feasible? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 549 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Bleiziffer, W. B Eichinger, I. Hettich, R. Guenzinger, D. Ruzicka, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart, May 1, 2007; 93(5): 615 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. R. Bridges, S. M. O'Brien, J. C. Cleveland, E. B. Savage, J. S. Gammie, F. H. Edwards, E. D. Peterson, and F. L. Grover Association between indices of prosthesis internal orifice size and operative mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1012 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik, I. G. Burwash, V. Kapila, T. G. Mesana, and M. Ruel Long-Term Outcomes After Valve Replacement for Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Circulation, July 4, 2006; 114(1_suppl): I-553 - I-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]