Thorac cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62(06): 469-474
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363498
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Impact of Patient–Prosthesis Mismatch Following Aortic Valve Replacement on Short-Term Survival: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis of 632 Consecutive Patients with Isolated Stented Biological Aortic Valve Replacement

Grischa Hoffmann
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Selam Abraham Ogbamicael
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Arne Jochens
2  Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Derk Frank
3  Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Georg Lutter
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Jochen Cremer
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Rainer Petzina
1  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 July 2013

08 November 2013

Publication Date:
19 February 2014 (eFirst)

Abstract

Objectives The impact of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) on short-term and long-term mortality remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of PPM and its impact on short-term survival in a large cohort of patients treated with isolated stented biological AVR in a single institution.

Methods We analyzed retrospectively data of 632 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis undergoing isolated stented biological AVR between January 2007 and February 2012 at our institution. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2. Statistical analyses were performed to identify influencing variables on valve size implanted.

Results Of the 632 patients investigated, 46% were females and mean age was 71.9 ± 10.4 years. PPM was observed in 93.8% (593 of 632 patients). In 71% of the patients, moderate (0.65–0.85 cm2/m2) PPM was present and in 22.8% severe (< 0.65 cm2/m2) PPM was present. The 30-day mortality was 1.4% (9 of 632 patients) with all being females. PPM was not associated with increased 30-day mortality. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated the usefulness of sex, height, body mass index, and body surface area as simultaneous predictors of the valve size implanted (R 2 = 0.39).

Conclusion PPM had no discernable impact on short-term survival, although it was present in 93.8% of our patients following isolated stented biological AVR.