Limitations in the Assessment of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Abstract

Background Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) may affect survival but data are conflicting. It is assessed by relating effective orifice area (EOA) to body surface area (EOAi). EOA is patient-specific as the result of flow-velocity times area at the individual patient's outflow tract levels (LVOT_A) divided by trans-prosthetic flow velocity. However, some studies use projected EOAs (i.e., valve size associated EOAs from other patient populations) to assess how PPM affects outcome.

Methods We analyzed 76 studies addressing hemodynamic outcome and/or mortality after bioprosthetic AVR.

Results In 48 studies, projected or measured EOA for calculation of EOAi and PPM assessment was used (of which 25 demonstrated an effect on survival). We identified 28 additional studies providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients after AVR. Despite EOA being a patient-specific parameter, 77% of studies assessing a PPM impact on survival used projected EOAs. The 28 studies are providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients in patients after AVR showed a highly significant, linear relationship between EOA and Bernoulli's gradient. Considering this relationship, it is surprising that relating EOA to body surface area (BSA) (EOAi) is standard but relating pressure gradients to BSA is not.

Conclusion We conclude that the majority of studies assessing PPM have used false assumptions because EOA is a patient-specific parameter and cannot be transferred to other patients. In addition, the use of EOAi to assess PPM may not be appropriate and could explain the inconsistent relation between PPM and survival in previous studies.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement - cardiac surgery - hemodynamic evaluation - echocardiography - flow velocity - pressure gradient

Sources of Funding

None disclosed.

Note

The papers were cited to exemplify relevant issues on publications addressing PPM as outlined in the manuscript. It is not our intention to criticize any particular publication.

Publication History

Received: 02 July 2018

Accepted: 14 November 2018

Publication Date:
04 January 2019 (online)

• References

• 1 Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978; 58 (01) 20-24
• 2 Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ. et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort–a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 (13) 1323-1334
• 3 Faerber G, Schleger S, Diab M. et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the new playground for prosthesis-patient mismatch. J Interv Cardiol 2014; 27 (03) 287-292
• 4 Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Validation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990; 16 (03) 637-643
• 5 Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003; 108 (08) 983-988
• 6 Urso S, Sadaba R, Vives M. et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: impact on quality of life and survival. J Heart Valve Dis 2009; 18 (03) 248-255
• 7 Walther T, Rastan A, Falk V. et al. Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 30 (01) 15-19
• 8 Kohsaka S, Mohan S, Virani S. et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (05) 1076-1080
• 9 Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Munfakh NA, Pasque MK, Damiano Jr RJ. POINT: prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (02) 278-283
• 10 Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N. et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53 (01) 39-47
• 11 Jamieson WR, 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 (01) 51-58 , discussion 59
• 12 Cotoni DA, Palac RT, Dacey LJ, O'Rourke DJ. Defining patient-prosthesis mismatch and its effect on survival in patients with impaired ejection fraction. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (03) 692-699
• 13 Bleiziffer S, Ali A, Hettich IM. et al. Impact of the indexed effective orifice area on mid-term cardiac-related mortality after aortic valve replacement. Heart 2010; 96 (11) 865-871
• 14 Hernández-Vaquero D, Llosa JC, Díaz R. et al. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on 30-day outcomes in young and middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 7: 46
• 15 Flameng W, Meuris B, Herijgers P, Herregods MC. Prosthesis-patient mismatch is not clinically relevant in aortic valve replacement using the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82 (02) 530-536
• 16 Jeong DS, Chang HW, Kim KH, Ahn H. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch in the aortic position: twenty-year experience with Korean patients. J Heart Valve Dis 2013; 22 (01) 56-63
• 17 Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J. et al. Recommendations on the echocardiographic assessment of aortic valve stenosis: a focused update from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2017; 30 (04) 372-392
• 18 Khan SS. Assessment of prosthetic valve hemodynamics by Doppler: lessons from in vitro studies of the St. Jude valve. J Heart Valve Dis 1993; 2 (02) 183-193
• 19 Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, Sirinelli AL, Neville PH, Marchand MA. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J Heart Valve Dis 2006; 15 (06) 768-775 , discussion 775–776
• 20 Aupart MR, Sirinelli AL, Diemont FF, Meurisse YA, Dreyfus XB, Marchand MA. The last generation of pericardial valves in the aortic position: ten-year follow-up in 589 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61 (02) 615-620
• 21 Banbury MK, Cosgrove III DM, Thomas JD. et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier–Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 73 (05) 1460-1465
• 22 Bavaria JE, Desai ND, Cheung A. et al. The St. Jude Medical Trifecta aortic pericardial valve: results from a global, multicenter, prospective clinical study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (02) 590-597
• 23 Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Guenzinger R. et al. Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 53 (04) 226-230
• 24 Dalmau MJ, María González-Santos J, López-Rodríguez J, Bueno M, Arribas A, Nieto F. One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2007; 6 (03) 345-349
• 25 Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 124 (01) 146-154
• 26 Deutsch MA, Prinzing A, Fiegl K. et al. Early haemodynamic performance of a latest generation supra-annular aortic bioprosthesis: experience from a large single-centre series. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49 (06) 1691-1698
• 27 Domoto S, Niinami H, Uwabe K. et al. Comparison of early haemodynamics of 19-mm aortic valve bioprostheses in patients with a small aortic annulus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 22 (01) 19-25
• 28 Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Guenzinger R. et al. The effective orifice area/patient aortic annulus area ratio: a better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13 (03) 382-388 , discussion 388–389
• 29 García-Bengochea J, Sierra J, González-Juanatey JR. et al. Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with the new Mitroflow 12A pericardial bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 2006; 15 (03) 446-451 , discussion 451–452
• 30 Goetzenich A, Langebartels G, Christiansen S, Hatam N, Autschbach R, Dohmen G. Comparison of the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and St. Jude Medical Epic bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement--a retrospective echocardiographic short-term study. J Card Surg 2009; 24 (03) 260-264
• 31 Kirsch ME, Tzvetkov B, Vermes E, Pouzet B, Sauvat S, Loisance D. Clinical and hemodynamic performance of the 19-mm medtronic mosaic bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 2005; 14 (03) 433-439
• 32 Levy F, Donal E, Bière L. et al. Hemodynamic performance during exercise of the new St. Jude Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: results from a French multicenter study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014; 27 (06) 590-597
• 33 Maitland A, Hirsch GM, Pascoe EA. Hemodynamic performance of the St. Jude Medical Epic Supra aortic stented valve. J Heart Valve Dis 2011; 20 (03) 327-331
• 34 Mariscalco G, Mariani S, Bichi S. et al. St. Jude Medical Trifecta aortic valve: results from a prospective regional multicentre registry. J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 10: 169
• 35 McDonald ML, Daly RC, Schaff HV. et al. Hemodynamic performance of small aortic valve bioprostheses: is there a difference?. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63 (02) 362-366
• 36 Nakamura H, Yamaguchi H, Takagaki M, Kadowaki T, Nakao T, Amano A. Rigorous patient-prosthesis matching of Perimount Magna aortic bioprosthesis. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2015; 23 (03) 261-266
• 37 Permanyer E, Estigarribia AJ, Ysasi A, Herrero E, Semper O, Llorens R. St. Jude Medical Trifecta aortic valve perioperative performance in 200 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2013; 17 (04) 669-672
• 38 Riess FC, Cramer E, Hansen L. et al. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37 (01) 145-153
• 39 Seitelberger R, Bialy J, Gottardi R. et al. Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004; 25 (03) 358-363
• 40 Seo H, Tsutsumi Y, Monta O. et al. Early outcomes and hemodynamics after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62 (07) 422-427
• 41 Suri RM, Michelena HI, Burkhart HM. et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves: should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (06) 1387-1395 , 1398, discussion 1395–1397
• 42 Takakura H, Sasaki T, Hashimoto K. et al. Hemodynamic evaluation of 19-mm Carpentier–Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71 (02) 609-613
• 43 Ugur M, Suri RM, Daly RC. et al. Comparison of early hemodynamic performance of 3 aortic valve bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148 (05) 1940-1946
• 44 Yun KL, Jamieson WR, Khonsari S, Burr LH, Munro AI, Sintek CF. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: hemodynamic comparison of stented and stentless aortic valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 11 (04) (Suppl. 01) 98-102
• 45 Daneshvar SA, Rahimtoola SH. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60 (13) 1123-1135
• 46 Florath I, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Ennker J. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch estimated by echocardiographic-determined effective orifice area on long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J 2008; 155 (06) 1135-1142
• 47 Doenst T, Amorim PA, Al-Alam N, Lehmann S, Mukherjee C, Faerber G. Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (05) 1180-1187
• 48 Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich IM. et al. Hemodynamic characterization of the Sorin Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis at rest and exercise. J Heart Valve Dis 2009; 18 (01) 95-100
• 49 Jamieson WR, Forgie WR, Hayden RI. et al. Hemodynamic performance of mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis–optimizing management for the small aortic annulus. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 58 (02) 69-75