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

This Article Abstract 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): Luis J. Castro Joseph M. Arcidi, Jr Audrey L. Fisher Vincent A. Gaudiani Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Castro, L. J. Articles by Gaudiani, V. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Castro, L. J. Articles by Gaudiani, V. A. Related Collections Valve disease

Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:31-36
© 2002 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original article: cardiovascular

Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch

^a Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Sequoia Hospital, Redwood City, California, USA

* Address reprint requests to Dr Castro, Pacific Coast Cardiac and Vascular Surgeons, 2900 Whipple Ave, Suite 210, Redwood City, CA 94062, USA

Presented at the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association, San Antonio, TX, Nov 8–10, 2001.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
Background. We routinely use aortic root enlargement (ARE) as part of one strategy to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with relatively small aortic roots who are undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 657 consecutive stented AVR patients at a single institution between 1995 to 2001. Of these, 114 (17%) patients underwent ARE. Root enlargement was selectively performed in patients at risk for prosthesis-patient mismatch, defined as calculated projected indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) less than 0.85 cm²/m². This involved extension of the aortotomy between the left and noncoronary cusps, valve implantation, and Dacron patch closure of the aorta, thus permitting replacement with a valve size appropriate to body surface area.

Results. The mean age of ARE patients was 72.5 ± 11.0 years, with 32% aged 80 years or more. Of the patients, 61% were female and 27% had undergone previous cardiac operations. Combined procedures included coronary bypass in 57 patients and mitral repair or replacement in 24. The prevalence of mismatch was less than 3%. The ARE required an average of 19 minutes of additional aortic clamp time. The 30-day mortality was 0.9%. Logistic regression showed perfusion time to be the only independent predictor of mortality.

Conclusions. Our results show that ARE can be performed readily and with minimal added risk relative to standard AVR. We also present a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch predicted at time of operation from the reference value of effective orifice area for a given prosthesis and the patient’s size. This includes use of ARE to enhance the potential benefit of AVR.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
A key development in the surgical treatment of aortic stenosis has been the gradual recognition that relief of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction is the goal of operating. Rahimtoola [1] first raised this issue in 1978. Later, Dumesnil and colleagues along with others [2–7] calculated the aortic valve area index required to minimize excess ventricular work at rest and through moderate exercise. Although many cardiac surgeons were trained to choose an aortic prosthesis based solely on the size of the debrided annulus, we now know that the size of the patient is also an important determinant as prevention of prosthesis-patient mismatch has been demonstrated to improve left ventricle mass regression [8–10], postoperative functional class/exercise tolerance [11], and late survival [12–14]. Simply replacing a diseased valve without regard to the size of the patient may diminish the purpose of operating in the first place by implanting a prosthesis that is too small for the patient’s needs.

Despite this logic, the relative importance of prosthesis size in aortic valve replacement (AVR) has recently been questioned. Several clinical series [15–17] of AVR recipients have failed to show a survival disadvantage with implantation of small aortic valve prostheses. As a consequence, the implantation of 19-mm labeled prostheses has been routinely advocated in patients with a body surface area (BSA) exceeding 1.7 m². For proponents of this approach, the hemodynamic advantage of a stentless aortic valve bioprosthesis in the small aortic root [18, 19] may become irrelevant, and the suggestion that root enlargement techniques may increase early morbidity and mortality has been raised.

To minimize our incidence of mismatch, as defined by indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) of less than 0.85 cm²/m² [2, 6, 7], we choose aortic root replacement, stentless aortic prostheses, or root enlargement [20–24] when the debrided annulus will not admit a stented prosthesis sufficiently large enough to prevent excess ventricular work based on the patient’s body size. Simple orthotopic AVR with a stented prosthesis suffices in about 80% of patients in our practice. In the setting of a relatively small aortic root, the choice of operation depends on the patient’s age and wishes, the local conditions of the aortic root, as well as the surgeon’s judgment and comfort level. We have used ARE routinely and have found this technique to be particularly attractive in older patients and for reoperative or combined procedures. In this article we present our operative strategy aimed to minimize potential mismatch after valve replacement, as well as an operative technique for ARE. Early morbidity and mortality associated with root enlargement are compared to those results we obtained with standard AVR.

	Material and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
Patient population
We examined the clinical records of 852 consecutive adult patients in whom we performed aortic valve procedures (isolated and combined) from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 2001, at a single institution. Of this group, 195 patients underwent stentless aortic valve replacement or aortic root reconstruction for a variety of indications, and will not be considered further. The remaining 657 patients underwent stented aortic valve replacement either with (all ARE, 114 patients, 17%) or without (all AVR, 543 patients, 83%) aortic root enlargement. We assessed the clinical characteristics and early outcomes obtained in these two groups by retrospective review according to the guidelines of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (http://www.sts.org) supported by our institution. Perioperative analysis included assessment of 30-day mortality (in hospital and out of hospital), stroke, reoperation for bleeding, and myocardial infarction. To minimize potential variation between these groups as a result of surgical complexity, we examined two additional subgroups that were more comparable: those who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement (ARE; 40 patients) or without (AVR; 231 patients).

Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the 657 patients who underwent stented aortic valve replacement with or without aortic root enlargement. This table also shows the clinical characteristics of the 271 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with or without root enlargement. The mean age of the entire population was 72.5 years, and 33% were aged 80 years or more. Approximately 75% of patients had at least New York Heart Association class III symptoms preoperatively. In addition to aortic valve replacement, 38% (252 patients) had coronary bypass procedures performed at the same time; 20% (132 patients) had concomitant mitral valve repair and or replacement; and 16% (103 patients) had other procedures Prior cardiac surgery had been performed in 25% (167 patients).

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1. Operative technique of aortic root enlargement. A standard oblique aortotomy (a) is extended down through the commissure between the left and noncoronary sinuses, into the base of the anterior mitral leaflet (b). A 30-mm Hemashield tube graft is cut to form a long elliptical patch (c). The patch is sewn with a single running 3-0 Prolene generously inverting the suture line (d). Pledgetted sutures are placed from outside the patch to within in a curvilinear direction to maximally use the span of the patch (e). The aortic prosthesis is seated in a supraannular position (f). The aortotomy is closed in its entirety with the Hemashield patch (g).

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
The distribution of labeled valve sizes is demonstrated graphically in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 3. The mean labeled aortic valve size was 23.9 ± 2.2 in all AVR patients and 23.2 ± 1.7 in all ARE patients. The median labeled size in both groups was 23 mm. A prosthesis labeled 23 mm or larger was used in 75% of the all ARE patients. A valve size labeled 19 was implanted in 1 (0.9%) ARE patient. This was a unique case requiring enlargement of a "nickel-sized" annulus in an adult to accommodate our smallest stented valve, which resulted, however, in mismatch (iEOA = 0.84 cm²/m²). Root replacement, in this instance, may have been a better solution. A valve size labeled 19 was implanted in 4 (0.7%) AVR patients. These patients were of small BSA and all had iEOAs exceeding 0.85 cm²/m². The indexed effective orifice area in all AVR patients was 1.24 ± 0.31 cm²/m² and in all ARE patients was 1.18 ± 0.23 cm²/m². The difference between the two groups is statistically significant and can be explained by acknowledging that those patients who did not require ARE had either appropriately matched, or larger, annular dimensions per BSA. Naturally, larger valves could be implanted. Those patients requiring ARE, by definition, had inappropriately small annular dimensions per BSA and were enlarged to achieve a more suitable dimension per BSA (iEOA 0.85 cm²/m²). Approximately 2.5% in either group had mismatched valves implanted.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2. Labeled valve size distribution of all aortic valve replacements (AVR) with and without aortic root enlargement (ARE).

	Comment

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
This review demonstrates that stented aortic valve replacement can be performed without causing prosthesis-patient mismatch in the vast majority (>97%) of patients who undergo operation. It also demonstrates that aortic root enlargement by the method described adds about 20 minutes of aortic clamp time, but adds no increase in morbidity or early mortality. In fact, we have long considered this technique a simple way to add value to aortic valve replacement and an alternate method of closing the aortotomy.

Our belief was strengthened when Dumesnil and colleagues [2], Pibarot and Dumesnil [5], and Pibarot and associates [6] pointed out that in the smaller prosthetic sizes, an increase of one valve size chronically reduced cardiac work by approximately 20%. Furthermore, preventing mismatch has been shown to improve left ventricle mass regression [8–10], postoperative functional class/exercise tolerance [11], and late survival [12–14]. However, other investigators [15–17] have reported no deleterious effect on long-term survival among patients who received mismatched valves. This belief was strengthened by the recent review by Medalion and colleagues [15] of data from the Cleveland Clinic, which demonstrated no association between apparent mismatch and postoperative mortality. It is imperative to note, however, that in this study, the definition of mismatch was based on the internal geometric orifice area of the prosthetic valve indexed for BSA. In a more recent study [7], it has been demonstrated that indexed geometric orifice area grossly overestimates and correlates poorly with the iEOA and therefore should not be used to identify patients who have a high transvalvular gradients on the basis of prosthesis-patient mismatch. Likewise, assessment of prosthetic valve size alone does not correlate with transvalvular gradients. Instead, mismatch was reliably predicted by using iEOA based on the reference value of the aortic prosthesis divided by the patient’s BSA. This constant also predicted resting and exercise postoperative gradients validated by measuring resting and exercise iEOA derived with Doppler echocardiography. Therefore, the review by Medalion and colleagues may not have identified those patients with true prosthesis-patient mismatch. Is valve size alone important? No. It is the relationship of the hydrodynamic properties of a given valve type and size (EOA) indexed to patient body size (BSA) that accurately predicts mismatch. A 19-mm pericardial tissue valve can be an appropriate choice in a small adult patient weighing 50 kg.

Nonetheless, we have persisted in our efforts to prevent mismatch, because we can implant larger valves safely and because it makes physiologic sense to minimize outflow tract obstruction. The fourth power inverse relationship between resistance and radius (Poiseuille’s law) probably explains why even the modest increase in diameter achieved with a stenotic prosthesis confers substantial benefit on patients with aortic stenosis. However, the value point in aortic valve replacement resides where the maximum increase in LV outflow size intersects the minimum operative risk. In our hands, aortic root enlargement often fits this bill because we can perform it more quickly than the other options (root replacement and stentless valves), and it provides very secure aortic closure.

Techniques of aortic root enlargement in the adult have been previously described and are commonly attributed to Manouguian and Seybold-Epting [20] and to Nicks and colleagues [21]. Several surgical series used these techniques [22–24] and demonstrated relative success, but at the expense of increased operative risk. We were particularly concerned by the increased mortality (7.1% vs 3.5%) that Sommers and David [23] reported in their series of aortic root enlargements versus aortic valve replacement alone. This important retrospective study provoked us to review our own experience with ARE. Comparing clinical profiles reveals that our patients were nearly 10 years older, were at least as complex as measured by adjunctive procedures, and were in similar New York Heart Association classes; in addition, 27% of our patients had previously undergone cardiac operations. Although the series reported by these investigators predates our own, we believe that the key difference that explains their higher mortality in root enlargement cases can be attributed to technique. They use a small teardrop-shaped patch of pericardium that is then sutured in only at the base of the aortotomy. This may be the culprit predisposing to dangerous bleeding, as was their experience. We use a section cut from a 30-mm Hemashield tube graft that was long enough to close the entire aortotomy. This material is readily available and quickly prepared. It is generally stronger and more uniform than pericardium, and it starts with the curved shape of the aorta built into it. The generous inverted suture lines on each side of the patch prevents troublesome bleeding problems. In fact, adding this material permits us to take deeper "bites" into the occasionally friable aortic wall without increasing tension on the aortic closure. Finally, we believe that the wide exposure gained by patch enlargement facilitates suture placement and seating of a stented prosthesis in elderly patients with heavy calcification of the sinotubular rim or, particularly, the coronary ostia, which can preclude or make dangerous the total root replacement and insertion of stentless valves.

Our study is limited by its failure to provide long-term follow-up. These results do not permit inferences regarding long-term survival or the functional improvement attainable with root enlargement. Such limitations, however, do not affect our conclusion that patch aortic root enlargement is a safe technique that can improve the quality of aortic valve replacement in patients with a small root. We encourage prospective operative strategies to minimize predictable mismatch, as well as a renewed interest in aortic root enlargement in patients with relatively small aortic roots.

	Acknowledgments

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
We acknowledge the assistance and expertise of Peter Dolan, who provided us with the anatomical illustrations.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 
DR JOHN D. OSWALT (Austin, TX): I want to ask you some technical questions. As I remember the Manouguian description, he described going down into the mitral valve and entering into the left atrium. So you are able to avoid that almost routinely? Is that my understanding from what you said?

DR CASTRO: We have not found it necessary to enter the left atrium in order to complete an effective enlargement incision between the divided commissure. We have found it very simple to separate the underlying left atrium from the base of the aorta with a gentle sweep of the scissors, so that, in the vast majority of cases, the atrium is not opened. Inadvertent entry into the atrium, however, must be recognized for obvious reasons. This is then closed in much the same manner in which Dr Manouguian originally described.

DR OSWALT: And then my other question is, in your series, where do you see the use of a stentless valve? As with our previous paper, where we saw such good flow and good EOAs represented from that, where do you see that represented in your practice?

DR CASTRO: This is a very difficult question to answer, as our own indications for use of stentless valves continues to evolve with the availability of the Medtronic Mosaic valve in our practice. We have employed stentless technology, either as subcoronary implants or root replacements, in approximately 15% to 20% of our aortic valve operations, preferring them to stented valves in the younger patient who wishes to be free of anticoagulation issues. Where root enlargement buys us the simplest or quickest method to upsize a valve one or two sizes, stentless valves afford relatively larger upsizing (or more EOA per real estate of aortic annulus) in those patients with unusually small roots. The local conditions of the aorta also weigh heavily on our decision. Subcoronary implantation clearly requires more technical attention and may be impossible in the presence of extensive aortic wall calcification; root replacements, in our hands, tend to have more bleeding problems postop and are made dangerous in the setting of ostial calcification more commonly seen in the elderly patient. These guidelines are heavily dependent on surgeon experience, as Dr Neil Kon has demonstrated outstanding results with stentless root replacement techniques. It is important, however, for all surgeons to have a personalized strategy in their heads before valve replacement, as the small, complex, and high-risk root usually masks itself as a routine AVR before opening up the aorta.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Material and methods Results Comment Acknowledgments Discussion References

 

1. Rahimtoola S.H. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58:20-24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Dumesnil J.G., Honos G.N., Lemieux M., Beauchemin J. Validation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:637-643.[Abstract]
3. Rashtian M.Y., Stevenson D.M., Allen D.T., et al. Flow characteristics of bioprosthetic heart valves. Chest 1990;98:365-375.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Dumesnil J.G., Yoganathan A.P. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 1992;6(Suppl I):34-38.
5. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J.G., Lemieux M., Cartier P., Metras J., Durand L.G. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity, and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:211-218.[Medline]
6. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J.G. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1131-1141.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J.G., Cartier P.C., Metras J., Lemieux M.D. Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S265-S268.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Gonzalez-Juanatey J.R., Garcia-Acuna J.M., Fernandez M.V., et al. Influence of the size of aortic valve prostheses on hemodynamics and change in left ventricular mass: implications for the surgical management of aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;112:273-280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Del Rizzo D.F., Abdoh A., Cartier P., Doty D., Westaby S. Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(Suppl I):114-120.[Medline]
10. Sim E.K.W., Orszulak T.A., Schaff H.V., Shub C. Influence of prosthesis size in left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 1994;8:293-297.[Abstract]
11. Hirooka K., Kawazoe K., Kosakai Y. Prediction of postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;58:1626-1630.[Abstract]
12. Abdelnoor M., Hall K.V., Nitter-Hauge S., Lindberg H., Ovrum E. Prognostic factors in aortic valve replacement associated with narrow aortic roots. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1986;20:227-232.[Medline]
13. Morris J.J., Schaff H.V., Mullany C.J., et al. Determinants of survival and recovery of left ventricular function after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:22-30.[Abstract]
14. Rao V., Jamieson W.R.E., Ivanov J., Armstrong S., David T.E. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival following aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2000;102(Suppl III):III-5-III-9.
15. Medalion B., Blackstone E.H., Lytle B.W., White J., Arnold J.H., Cosgrove D.M. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:963-974.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Sawant D., Singh A.K., Feng W., Bert A.A., Rotenberg F. St. Jude Medical cardiac valves in small aortic roots: follow-up to sixteen years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:499-509.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Gill C.C., Halifax C.K., Lytle B.W., Cosgrove D.M., Golding L.A., Loop F.D. Early clinical evaluation after aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical valve in patients with a small aortic root. Circulation 1982;66(Suppl I):I-147-I-149.
18. Sintek C.F., Fletcher A.D., Khonsari S. Stentless porcine aortic root: valve of choice for the elderly patient with small aortic root?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;109:871-876.[Abstract]
19. David T.E., Puschmann R., Ivanov J., et al. Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a case-match study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:236-241.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Manouguian S., Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision to the anterior mitral leaflet. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979;78:402-412.[Abstract]
21. Nicks R., Cartmill T., Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root. Thorax 1970;25:339-346.[Medline]
22. Pugliese P., Bernabei M., Santi C., Pasque A., Eufrate S. Posterior enlargement of the small annulus during aortic valve replacement versus implantation of a small prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 1983;38:31-36.[Abstract]
23. Sommers K.E., David T.E. Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargement of the aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:1608-1612.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Kitamura M., Satoh M., Hachida M., Endo M., Hashimoto A., Koyanagi H. Aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus with or without annular enlargement. J Heart Valve Dis 1996;5(Suppl III):S289-S293.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				T. E. David, C. M. Feindel, J. Bos, J. Ivanov, and S. Armstrong Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: Optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2008; 135(1): 19 - 24. [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. Dhareshwar, T. M. Sundt III, J. A. Dearani, H. V. Schaff, D. J. Cook, and T. A. Orszulak Aortic root enlargement: What are the operative risks? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2007; 134(4): 916 - 924. [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]

				T. Takaseya, T. Kawara, S. Tokunaga, M. Kohno, Y. Oishi, and S. Morita Aortic Valve Replacement With 17-mm St. Jude Medical Prostheses for a Small Aortic Root in Elderly Patients Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2050 - 2053. [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]

				J. Magne, P. Mathieu, J. G. Dumesnil, D. Tanne, F. Dagenais, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Survival After Mitral Valve Replacement Circulation, March 20, 2007; 115(11): 1417 - 1425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. St. Rammos, D. G. Ketikoglou, G. J. Koullias, S. G. Tsomkopoulos, C. K. Rammos, and N. P. Argyrakis The Nicks-Nunez posterior enlargement in the small aortic annulus: immediate-intermediate results Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, December 1, 2006; 5(6): 749 - 753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Kunihara, K. Schmidt, P. Glombitza, V. Dzindzibadze, H. Lausberg, and H.-J. Schafers Root replacement using stentless valves in the small aortic root: a propensity score analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2006; 82(4): 1379 - 1384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Pibarot and J G Dumesnil Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention Heart, August 1, 2006; 92(8): 1022 - 1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Dumesnil and P. Pibarot Prosthesis-patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: The evidence continues to accumulate J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 952 - 955. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Taggart Prosthesis patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement: possible but pertinent? Eur. Heart J., March 2, 2006; 27(6): 644 - 646. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Moon, M. K. Pasque, N. A. Munfakh, S. J. Melby, J. S. Lawton, N. Moazami, J. E. Codd, T. D. Crabtree, H. B. Barner, and R. J. Damiano Jr Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Age and Body Size on Late Survival Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2006; 81(2): 481 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tasca, Z. Mhagna, S. Perotti, P. B. Centurini, T. Sabatini, A. Amaducci, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. D. Tomba, E. Quiani, et al. Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis Circulation, January 31, 2006; 113(4): 570 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Mohty-Echahidi, J. F. Malouf, S. E. Girard, H. V. Schaff, D. E. Grill, M. E. Enriquez-Sarano, and F. A. Miller Jr Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival in Patients With Small St Jude Medical Mechanical Prostheses in the Aortic Position Circulation, January 24, 2006; 113(3): 420 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Botzenhardt, W. B. Eichinger, S. Bleiziffer, R. Guenzinger, I. M. Wagner, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Hemodynamic Comparison of Bioprostheses for Complete Supra-Annular Position in Patients With Small Aortic Annulus J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 21, 2005; 45(12): 2054 - 2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Li, J. G. Dumesnil, P. Mathieu, and P. Pibarot Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 5, 2005; 45(7): 1034 - 1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Otero, J. L. Pomar, J. M. Revuelta, and J. J. Rufilanchas Comparative Evaluation of Small-Size Sorin Slimline and St. Jude HP Heart Valve Prostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2005; 79(4): 1284 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tasca, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. Dalla Tomba, Z. Mhagna, G. Troise, and E. Quaini Impact of the Improvement of Valve Area Achieved With Aortic Valve Replacement on the Regression of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2005; 79(4): 1291 - 1296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Amarelli, A. Della Corte, G. Romano, G. Iasevoli, G. Dialetto, L. S. De Santo, M. De Feo, M. Torella, M. Scardone, and M. Cotrufo Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with 17-mm St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in isolated aortic stenosis J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2005; 129(3): 512 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tasca, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, M. DallaTomba, Z. Mhagna, G. Troise, and E. Quaini Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Left Ventricular Mass Regression Following Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2005; 79(2): 505 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Dumesnil and P. Pibarot Prosthesis size and prosthesis-patient size are unrelated to prosthesis-patient mismatch J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2004; 127(6): 1852 - 1852. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Blackstone, A. M. Gillinov, and D. M. Cosgrove Reply to the Editor J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2004; 127(6): 1852 - 1854. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Blackstone, D. M. Cosgrove, W.R. E. Jamieson, N. J. Birkmeyer, J. H. Lemmer Jr, D. C. Miller, E. G. Butchart, G. Rizzoli, M. Yacoub, and A. Chai Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2003; 126(3): 783 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Blais, J. G. Dumesnil, R. Baillot, S. Simard, D. Doyle, and P. Pibarot Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Short-Term Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement Circulation, August 26, 2003; 108(8): 983 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services