Influence of Aortic Dimensions on the Hemodynamic Performance of Small Aortic Valve Prostheses: Impact on Patient/Prosthesis Mismatch

Abstract

Background: Since Doppler echocardiography takes no account of pressure recovery, the true hemodynamic burden of aortic valve prostheses remains vague. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the methodological error of Doppler gradient estimation by means of a model demonstrating the different influence of aortic root diameters on net and Doppler gradients, respectively. This matters especially in small valves and the related patient/prosthesis mismatch calculation. Methods: Two bileaflet small aortic valve prostheses (19 mm SJM Regent® and On-X® valve) were tested using a pulsatile circulatory mock loop simulator with two different aortic models: one with statistically normal diameters according to annular size, another one simulating an aortic aneurysm of 50 mm. Doppler and simultaneously recorded net gradients as well as systolic energy losses were obtained for different hemodynamic conditions. Results: In all measurements a significant amount of pressure recovery was observed. In cases of aortic aneurysm systolic energy loss increased significantly for each cardiac output at each heart rate (p < 0.0028), reflected by a significant (p < 0.0001) increase in net gradients. The corresponding Doppler gradients were unchanged. This indicates significantly less pressure recovery (p < 0.0001) in the aneurysmatic aorta. Conclusions: Geometry of the ascending aorta considerably alters aortic valve hemodynamic parameters. The hemodynamic function of small aortic valve prostheses, especially with corresponding normal outflow dimensions, is much better than expected from Doppler gradients. Thus, calculation of a patient/prosthesis mismatch can be misleading.

Patient/prosthesis mismatch - aortic aneurysm - pressure recovery

References

• 1 Khan S S. Assessment of prosthetic valve hemodynamics by Doppler: lessons learned from in vitro studies of the St. Jude valve.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1993;  2 183-193
• 2 Gjertsson P, Caidahl K, Svensson G, Wallentin I, Bech-Hanssen O. Important pressure recovery in patients with aortic stenosis and high Doppler gradients.  Am J Cardiol. 2001;  88 139-144
• 3 Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention.  Heart. 2006;  92 (8) 1022-1029
• 4 Reul H, Vahlbruch A, Giersiepen M, Schmitz-Rode T, Hirtz V, Effert S. The geometry of the aortic root in health, at valve disease and after valve replacement.  J Biomech. 1990;  23 181-191
• 5 Knott E, Reul H, Knoch M, Steinseifer U, Rau G. In vitro comparison of aortic heart valve prostheses. Part 1: Mechanical valves.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988;  96 952-961
• 6 Reul H, Minamitami H, Runge J. A hydraulic analog of the systemic and pulmonary circulation for testing artificial hearts.  Proc ESAO. 1975;  2 120-127
• 7 Voelker W, Reul H, Nienhaus G et al. Comparison of valvular resistance, stroke work loss, and Gorlin valve area for quantification of aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile aortic flow model.  Circ. 1995;  91 1196-1204
• 8 Yoganathan A P, Cape E G, Sung H W, Williams F P, Jimoh A. Review of hydrodynamic principles for the cardiologist: applications to the study of blood flow and jets by imaging techniques.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;  12 1344-1353
• 9 Levine R A, Cape E G, Yoganathan A P. Pressure recovery distal to stenoses: expanding clinical applications of engineering principles.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;  21 1026-1028
• 10 Heinrich R S, Marcus R H, Ensley A E, Gibson D E, Yoganathan A P. Valve orifice area alone is an insufficient index of aortic stenosis severity: effects of the proximal and distal geometry on transaortic energy loss.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;  8 509-515
• 11 Garcia D, Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G, Sakr F, Durand L G. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: a new index based on the energy loss concept.  Circulation. 2000;  101 765-771
• 12 Voelker W, Reul H, Stelzer T, Schmidt A, Karsch K R. Pressure recovery in aortic stenosis: an in vitro study in a pulsatile flow model.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;  20 1585-1593
• 13 Heinrich R S, Fontaine A A, Grimes R Y et al. Experimental analysis of fluid mechanical energy losses in aortic valve stenosis: importance of pressure recovery. Annals of Biomedical Engineering.  Ann Biomed Eng. 1996;  24 685-694
• 14 Bech-Hanssen O, Caidahl K, Wallentin I, Ask P, Wranne B. Assessment of effective orifice area of prosthetic aortic valves with Doppler echocardiography: an in vivo and in vitro study.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;  122 (2) 287-295
• 15 Bech-Hanssen O, Gjertsson P, Houltz E et al. Net pressure gradients in aortic prosthetic valves can be estimated by Doppler.  J Am Soc Echo. 2003;  16 (8) 858-866
• 16 Dohmen G, Schmitz C, Schmitz-Rode T, Steinseifer U, Autschbach R. Hemodynamics of high-performance bileaflet valves: comparison to simulated clinical Doppler measurements.  J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;  15 549-556
• 17 Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Role of aortic size, aortic valve area, and direction of the stenotic jet in vitro.  Circulation. 1996;  94 1934-1940
• 18 Garcia D, Dumesnil J G, Durand L G, Kadem L, Pibarot P. Discrepancies between catheter and Doppler estimates of valve effective orifice area can be predicted from the pressure recovery phenomenon.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;  41 435-442
• 19 Vandervoort P M, Greenberg N L, Powell K A, Cosgrove D M, Thomas J D. Pressure recovery in bileaflet heart valve prostheses. Localized high velocities and gradients in central and side orifices with implications for Doppler-catheter gradient relation in aortic and mitral position.  Circulation. 1995;  92 (12) 3464-3472
• 20 Aljassim O, Svensson G, Houltz E, Bech-Hanssen O. Doppler-catheter discrepancies in patients with bileaflet mechanical prostheses or bioprostheses in the aortic valve position.  Am J Cardiol. 2008;  102 (10) 1383-1389
• 21 Vicchio M, De Santo L S, Della Corte A et al. Aortic valve replacement with 19-mm bileaflet prostheses in the elderly: left ventricular mass regression and quality of life.  J Heart Valve Dis. 2008;  17 216-221
• 22 Vicchio M, Della Corte A, De Santo L S et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in the elderly: survival, ventricular mass regression, and quality of life.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;  86 1791-1798
• 23 Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: is there a benefit?.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;  85 (1) 94-100
• 24 Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis.  Circulation. 2006;  113 (4) 570-576
• 25 Taggart D P. Prosthesis patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement: possible but pertinent?.  Eur Heart J. 2006;  27 644-646
• 26 Monin J L. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: myth or reality?.  Heart. 2009;  95 948-952
• 27 Howell N J, Keogh B E, Ray D et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement does not affect survival.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;  89 60-64
• 28 Jamieson W R E, Ye J, Higgins J et al. Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;  89 51-59
• 29 Blackstone E H, Cosgrove D M, Jamieson W R E et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;  126 (3) 783-793
• 30 Koch C G, Khandwala F, Estafanous F G, Loop F D, Blackstone E H. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement.  Circulation. 2005;  111 (24) 3221-3229