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): Jian Ye Jennifer Higgins Anson Cheung Guy J. Fradet Peter Skarsgard Samuel V. Lichtenstein Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamieson, W.R. E. Articles by Lichtenstein, S. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jamieson, W.R. E. Articles by Lichtenstein, S. V. Related Collections Valve disease

---

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

Effect of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival With Aortic Valve Replacement: Assessment to 15 Years

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Accepted for publication August 25, 2009.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Jamieson, 486 Burrard Bldg, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 1Y6, Canada (Email: eric.jamieson{at}vch.ca).

Presented at the Forty-fifth Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, Jan 26–28, 2009.

Background: The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement has received considerable attention but there remains controversy. This study was performed to determine the predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival.

Methods: Contemporary mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses were implanted in 3,343 patients with aortic valve replacement between 1982 and 2003. The mean age was 68.06 ± 11.20 years (median 70.06; range, 19 to 94), and the mean follow-up was 6.18 ± 4.96 years, for a total of 20,666 years of follow-up. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was classified by effective orifice area index categories: normal (>0.85 cm²/m²), 1,547 (46.3%); mild-to-moderate (>0.65 cm²/m² to 0.85 cm²/m²), 1,584 (47.4%); and severe (<0.65 cm²/m²), 212 (6.3%).

Results: The predictors of overall mortality were age, age categorization, New York Heart Association functional class III/IV, concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prosthesis type, preoperative congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All categories of effective orifice area indexes were not predictive of overall mortality, late mortality, or early mortality. The 15-year overall survival was differentiated by effective orifice area index categories: 38.1% ± 2.1%, 37.0% ± 2.2%, and 22.1% ± 6.5%, respectively, for the three categories. Survival adjusted for the covariates (effective orifice area index, age, basal mass index, and ejection fraction) determined no effect except severe effective orifice area index when adjusted for ejection fraction more than 50% (p = 0.049).

Conclusions: Prosthesis-patient mismatch is not a predictor of overall standard unadjusted mortality to 15 years after aortic valve replacement, regardless of the category of effective orifice area index.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Angeloni, G. Melina, P. Pibarot, U. Benedetto, S. Refice, G. M. Ciavarella, A. Roscitano, R. Sinatra, and J. R. Pepper Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on the Regression of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation After Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement With a Bioprosthetic Valve in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, January 1, 2012; 5(1): 36 - 42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Dunning, H. Gao, J. Chambers, N. Moat, G. Murphy, D. Pagano, S. Ray, J. Roxburgh, and B. Bridgewater Aortic valve surgery: Marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use-an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2011; 142(4): 776 - 782.e3. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Kainuma, K. Taniguchi, T. Daimon, T. Sakaguchi, T. Funatsu, H. Kondoh, S. Miyagawa, K. Takeda, Y. Shudo, T. Masai, et al. Does Stringent Restrictive Annuloplasty for Functional Mitral Regurgitation Cause Functional Mitral Stenosis and Pulmonary Hypertension? Circulation, September 13, 2011; 124(11_suppl_1): S97 - S106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Higgins, W. R. E. Jamieson, O. Benhameid, J. Ye, A. Cheung, P. Skarsgard, E. Germann, F. Chan, and S. V. Lichtenstein Influence of patient gender on mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2011; 142(3): 595 - 601.e2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. F. Coutinho, P. M. Correia, G. Pauperio, F. de Oliveira, and M. J. Antunes Aortic root enlargement does not increase the surgical risk and short-term patient outcome? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, August 1, 2011; 40(2): 441 - 447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Cotoni, R. T. Palac, L. J. Dacey, and D. J. O'Rourke Defining Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Its Effect on Survival in Patients With Impaired Ejection Fraction Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2011; 91(3): 692 - 699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. R. E. Jamieson and G. J. Fradet Reply to the Editor J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2010; 140(5): 1200 - 1201. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik Aortic Root Enlargement: Worth the Effort? Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2010; 90(3): 703 - 705. [Full Text] [PDF]