ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:56-62. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.03.027
© 2008 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Gus J. Vlahakes
Arvind K. Agnihotri
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waisbren, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Agnihotri, A. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waisbren, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Agnihotri, A. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease
Right arrowRelated Article

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

Changes in Mitral Regurgitation After Replacement of the Stenotic Aortic Valve

Emily C. Waisbren, BSa, Louis-Mathieu Stevens, MD, SMa, Edwin G. Avery, MDb, Michael H. Picard, MDc, Gus J. Vlahakes, MDa, Arvind K. Agnihotri, MDa,*

a Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Center, Boston, Massachusetts
b Cardiac Anesthesia Division, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Center, Boston, Massachusetts
c Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Center, Boston, Massachusetts

Accepted for publication March 12, 2008.

* Address correspondence to Dr Agnihotri, Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Box 642, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114 (Email: aagnihotri{at}partners.org).


Adult cardiac surgery: The Annals of Thoracic Surgery CME Program is located online at http://cme.ctsnetjournals.org. To take the CME activity related to this article, you must have either an STS member or an individual non-member subscription to the journal.

 

   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Background: Concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) is frequently seen in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis. This study was undertaken to characterize the magnitude of MR in these patients and identify factors associated with significant postoperative change.

Methods: Between 2002 and 2006, 391 patients with stenotic AV disease but no structural mitral valve disease underwent AVR without coronary artery bypass grafting. Excluded were 164 patients with combined aortic and mitral intervention, right heart surgery, or moderate to severe aortic insufficiency, to yield a final study group of 227 patients. Follow-up echographic evaluation of MR was obtained in 87 of 219 patients (40%) discharged alive without mitral valve intervention.

Results: Overall mortality was 3.5%. After AVR, intraoperative MR severity improved in 66% of patients. Independent predictors of lower postoperative MR were small left atrial size (p = 0.03), the presence of aortic insufficiency (p < 0.01), and preoperative congestive heart failure (p = 0.04). Prosthetic valve type or size was not an independent predictor of postoperative MR. After adjustment for intraoperative underestimation of MR grade, there was no difference between the postprocedural MR grade and the early or late follow-up MR grade (p = 0.6 and p = 0.8, respectively).

Conclusions: The results of this study support a conservative, tailored approach to concomitant mitral surgery in patients presenting for correction of aortic stenosis who demonstrate functional mitral regurgitation. Characteristics associated with resolution may allow for identification of patients most likely to benefit from mitral valve repair or replacement.

Patients who require surgical treatment of aortic stenosis often present with concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR). When the MR is severe, a double-valve operation with mitral valve repair or replacement is indicated. In most patients, MR is less severe and surgical decision making is influenced by an expectation that there will be a reduction in MR with relief of the gradient across the aortic valve (AV) [1].

Limited data exists on the incidence and resolution of secondary or "functional" MR in patients presenting with aortic stenosis. The objective of this study was to characterize the prevalence of concomitant MR and factors associated with its resolution.


   Patients and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
Results
 Comment
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Study Group
Full approval and a waiver for patient consent were granted from the Institutional Review Board before the initiation of this study in July 2006. Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis at Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Center between January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2006, were identified by query of our data warehouse.

Patients with normal valve leaflets or otherwise normally functioning mitral valves despite mild calcification of the posterior annulus or leaflet were included in the study and were defined as having secondary or "functional" MR. We also included patients who underwent AVR with concomitant aortic annular enlargement procedures and atrial septal defect repairs. We excluded patients with structural mitral valve disease, mitral stenosis, combined procedures involving coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), treatment of endocarditis, right heart valve procedures, and patients with a preoperative diagnosis of moderate or severe aortic insufficiency (AI) so that patients presenting with aortic stenosis as the primary indication for intervention were selected.

Preoperative, operative, and immediate postoperative data were obtained from a repository containing validated data elements through an internal auditing process. Additional information was obtained by review of the intraoperative echocardiograms. Patient mortality was defined as death within 30 days of operation. Morbidities were defined by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons data definitions document (version 2.51.1) [2]. Echocardiographic follow-up was obtained by querying the institutional echocardiographic database, patient records, and correspondence from referring cardiologists.

Echocardiography
Intraoperative, two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed in all patients. Omniplane-3 Ultra-Band (Hewlett-Packard, Andover, MA) TEE probe (frequency, 2 to 7 mHz) transducers connected to Philips Sonos 5500 (Philips Medical Systems, NA, Bothell, WA) standard echocardiography consoles were used to perform the TEE studies. Previously recorded images were used to quantitatively assess the severity of functional MR immediately before and after surgical intervention. All measurements and assessments were performed on patients under general anesthesia.

One appropriately trained observer (E. W.) reviewed all echocardiograms. These results were verified by two expert echocardiographers (E. A., M. A.) to confirm accuracy. In addition to preoperative and postoperative MR grade, measurements were made of left atrial size, left ventricular wall thickness, and left ventricular internal diameter. The severity of MR was measured using the vena contracta method, as previously described [3].

The American Society of Echocardiography guidelines for evaluation of the severity of MR state that a vena contracta width (VCW) of less than 0.3 cm is considered a mild lesion, and a VCW of 0.7 cm or more is severe [4]. Values within these parameters are moderate lesions. A midesophageal 4-chamber view (transducer angle, 0° to 20°) and the midesophageal long-axis view (transducer angle, 120° to 135°) were used to obtain the VCW measurements. Left atrial size was measured from the midesophageal 4-chamber view from the lateral wall to the interatrial septum, and inferior left ventricular wall thickness and internal diameter were measured from the transgastric, short-axis view at end-diastole. Trabeculae carnea and papillary muscles were excluded for wall thickness measurements. At least three measurements were taken, and the mean value was calculated [5].

Aortic Valve Orifice Area
The in vivo valve area for the prosthetic AV was estimated using the effective orifice area (EOA) and geometric orifice area (GOA) of the valve prosthesis. The EOA was derived from the manufacturer's published values of projected in vivo EOA. This value was indexed to body surface area to yield the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) of the valve. The GOA was also considered as a potentially important variable. It was calculated using the internal diameter of the valve (GOA = {pi} x inner ring radius2). Indexing to the body surface area yielded the indexed geometric orifice area (iGOA) [6].

For the purposes of seeking relationships in valve size selection and outcomes, including resolution of MR, the iEOA and iGOA were both considered to be continuous variables. To facilitate tabular representation, an iEOA of less than 0.65 cm2/m2 and an iGOA of less than 1.2 cm2/m2 were defined as "patient-prosthesis mismatch" in the present study [7–9]. EOA and GOA values used in this study were consistent with those used in other studies (Appendix) [10].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Appendix Values Used for Geometric and Effective Orifice Areas of the Aortic Prosthetic Valves
 
Statistical Analysis
The data are summarized as means ± standard deviation or numbers and percentages. The Student t test was used to compare continuous variables between the groups, and {chi}2 analysis of binary variables was performed. Logistic multivariable regression analysis with stepwise forward selection was used for binary outcomes, and linear multivariable regression was used for modeling of continuous outcomes. Criteria for entry and retention into multivariable models were set at the 0.1 and 0.05 confidence level, respectively. Only variables significant at the 0.1 level were considered for the multivariable analyses.

A second logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors associated with achieving postoperative mild MR. For this analysis, the 227 patients with isolated AVR were considered. A depiction was created from the regression equation, and 70% confidence intervals were applied. For multivariable analysis, missing data or variables were standardized to the mean of the known group.

In a secondary exploratory analysis, we assessed the pattern of change in mitral valve regurgitation grade for 87 patients (40%) discharged alive who had no procedure performed on the mitral valve and in whom we were able to obtain follow-up echocardiography evaluation of the mitral valve. To be consistent with follow-up echocardiography reports, mitral valve regurgitation grade was defined in four categories as none/trace, mild, moderate, and severe. A mixed-effects ordinal logistic regression model [11] was used to account for the correlation between repeated echocardiography measurements and was calculated using the NLMIXED procedure in SAS 9.1 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). We defined five time points for echocardiography measurements: baseline (preoperative), intraoperative preprocedure, intraoperative postprocedure, early follow-up (<30 days), and late follow-up (700 ± 506 days). Values of p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
Comment
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Patient Population
From the Massachusetts General Hospital Cardiac Data Warehouse, 391 patients without structural mitral valve pathology who underwent AVR without CABG from January 1, 2002, to January 1, 2006, were identified. From this cohort, 29 patients were excluded for the following reasons: endocarditis, concomitant pulmonic or tricuspid operations, or procedures for ascending aortic pathology. Because the main objective of this study was to assess change in MR when no procedure was performed on the mitral valve, 7 patients who underwent AVR plus mitral valve replacement and 7 who had repair were excluded. Also excluded were 121 patients with preoperative moderate or severe AI, leaving 106 patients with mild AI and 121 patients with either none or only trace AI. Preoperative, intraoperative, and echocardiographic characteristics are listed in Table 1. Of note, no patient presented with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Preoperative Characteristics of 227 Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement
 
Morbidity and Mortality
Morbidity and mortality are reported in Table 2. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were analyzed to determine univariable and multivariable associations with death (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Surgical Mortality and Morbidity in 227 Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Patient and Operative Characteristics Related to Risk of Death in 227 Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement
 
Factors Associated With Resolution of MR
After AVR, the degree of MR improved in 112 of 227 patients (649%). Of the 167 patients preoperatively diagnosed with moderate MR, the regurgitation improved postoperatively in 111 (66%). Postoperative change in MR is reported in Table 4 and Figure 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Preoperative and Postoperative Mitral Regurgitation for Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement
 

Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 1. Association between preoperative mitral regurgitation (MR, x axis) and postoperative MR improvement (y axis) after isolated aortic valve replacement. Open circles represent mild preoperative MR (vena contracta width [VCW] <0.3 cm). Triangles represent greater than mild preoperative MR (VCW ≥ 0.3).

 
When observed MR was mild or less, there was a weak correlation (p = 0.8, Pearson r = 0.027) between preoperative MR and postoperative MR (Fig 1). However, when the MR was more than mild, there was a strong, linear correlation (p < 0.0001, Pearson r = 0.63). By multivariate analysis, independent predictors of the degree of MR after isolated AVR are listed in Table 5. Figure 2 depicts the probability of preoperative MR resolving to a degree classified as "mild" (VCW < 0.3 cm) after isolated AVR by grouping patients into two groups; those with congestive heart failure (CHF) who did not have an enlarged left atrium (<4.5 cm), and those without CHF who presented with an enlarged left atrium (>4.5 cm).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5 Independent Predictors of a Lower Postoperative Mitral Regurgitation in Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement
 

Figure 2
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig 2. The probability of a patient leaving the operating room with mild or less mitral regurgitation (MR), defined as vena contracta width (VCW) <0.3 cm, as a function of preoperative MR, congestive heart failure (CHF), and left atrial (LA) size. Solid lines represent solutions to the multivariable model regression equation for postoperative MR, and dashed lines are the corresponding 70% confidence limits (see Table 5).

 
Impact of Aortic Prosthesis Size
According to our definitions of "patient-prosthesis mismatch," (iEOA < 0.65 cm2/m2 and an iGOA < 1.2 cm2/m2), 7 patients had a mismatch according to iEOA, 8 had a mismatch according to iGOA, and only 3 had mismatch according to both definitions. No independent relationship was found between prosthesis size and change in MR considering both iGOA and iEOA as continuous measures (p = 0.2, Pearson r = 0.095). An aortic root enlargement procedure was performed on 11 patients (4.6%), all of whom underwent isolated AVR, and their mortality, morbidity and change in concomitant MR were not significantly different than the overall group.

Early and Late Follow-Up Change in MR
Amongst the 87 patients (40%) discharged alive who had no procedure performed on the mitral valve and in whom late echocardiographic information was available, the relationship of pre- and postoperative transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) to intraoperative transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) assessment of MR was investigated. In this group, more patients presented moderate MR in the preoperative TTE (19.9%) compared with the intraoperative preprocedural TEE (9.9%) (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.28 [1.65–6.52]; p = 0.01). The intraoperative underestimation of MR grade was estimated by the preoperative–intraoperative preprocedural difference in the MR grade. After adjustment for this underestimation, there was no difference between the postprocedural presence of moderate MR (7.1% by TEE) and the early (OR 0.74 [0.23–2.40]; p = 0.6) or late (OR 1.15 [0.42–3.13]; p = 0.8) follow-up presence of moderate MR. Moreover, the MR grade did not progress to "severe" in any patient during early or late follow-up.


   Comment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
Acknowledgments
 References
 
Physiologic changes caused by aortic stenosis can create or magnify functional MR. In addition to the direct gradient effect on ventricular systolic pressures, remodeling, hypertrophy, and fluid overload can also aggravate MR [12]. As a result, a high incidence of primary aortic stenosis patients present with significant secondary MR. In the current series of patients, 75% had at least moderate preoperative MR.

Decisions regarding surgical treatment are challenging given incomplete information. Without mitral intervention, there is evidence to suggest that relief of the AV gradient alone should cause immediate improvement in left ventricular pressure, with some reduction in MR. Additional benefit may be achieved over time with regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and resolution of volume overload. Avoiding unnecessary additional operations in these patients may reduce morbidity, especially given the sensitivity of the hypertrophied heart to ischemia.

Despite these observations, some groups recommend an aggressive approach to operating on the mitral valve. Supporting this idea is the observation that double-valve operations for aortic stenosis and secondary MR are low risk and have impressive results [12]. The use of aggressive therapy is further supported by data showing that concomitant moderate to severe MR does not improve in half the patients and that it is increased in a small subgroup of patients [13–15]. Another study observed that no difference in survival, but isolated AVR for patients with preoperative MR exceeding 2 had increased composite end points of CHF and reintervention. These authors identified several important risk factors, including left atrial size exceeding 5 cm, AV gradient of less than 60 mm Hg, and atrial fibrillation [16]. On the other extreme, some believe that repair or replacement is unnecessary unless patients clearly demonstrate severe MR. Several reports have documented minimal or no impact on early morbidity when there is no intervention on the mitral valve [1, 17–19].

Other recent reports have included patients with mixed mitral pathology, or concomitant CABG [20]. These factors may complicate the interpretation of changes in MR in the isolated AVR population. In a previous analysis, we documented a reduction in MR by CABG alone [21]. In the case of patients with structural mitral valve disease, it is generally known that the degree of benefit from isolated AVR will be limited, and we did not include this population in the present study.

In an attempt to provide information for surgical decision making, the current analysis identified several characteristics that were independently associated with changes in MR:

• Left atrial size. Our analysis underscores the importance of left atrial size as a predictor of postoperative MR (Table 5). Left atrial enlargement is a chronic change and is not only a surrogate marker of the chronicity of disease but is also highly correlated with atrial fibrillation and older age, and is an important predictor of postoperative death [22].
• Congestive heart failure. Patients presenting with CHF enjoyed a greater resolution of MR. The designation of a patient as having CHF in this study implies the presence of symptoms of failure (fluid overload) within 2 weeks of operation, as defined by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons [2]. Does the MR contribute to the CHF, or does the aortic stenosis–induced CHF cause increased MR? The causal mechanism at play is critical for the surgical care of these patients. This study supports the latter, implying that one can reliably expect greater improvement in MR in patients presenting with fluid overload by performing only an AVR. The MR in CHF patients would appear to be due, at least in substantial part, to the advanced aortic stenosis. In addition, preoperative fluid management for MR cannot be optimized in patients presenting with aortic stenosis as it would be for a patient with CHF but no aortic stenosis. The immediate resolution of MR is likely due not only to the relief of gradient but also to the reduction in fluid status by intraoperative modulation of intravascular pressures and hemoconcentration on bypass.
• Atrial fibrillation. Although not specifically identified as an independent predictor, the relationship of this condition with left atrial size (p = 0.02), CHF (p < 0.001), and age (p < 0.001) are worth noting. Patients with atrial fibrillation are less likely to see improvement in MR (p = 0.1). This effect is accounted for by the presence of correlated variables.
• Aortic insufficiency. Although patients with moderate or severe AI were excluded, we did include patients with mild AI because we believed that they would be part of a representative population of patients whose primary indication was aortic stenosis. Mild AI in this setting is not generally considered to be physiologically significant. Somewhat unexpectedly, we identified that these patients with trace or mild AI had more improvement in postoperative MR than would otherwise be expected. The mechanism leading to this relationship is unclear. Certainly, the AI causes increased end-diastolic ventricular volume, but at this degree, its significance was not expected. It is also possible that patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis have underestimated AI due to a combination of use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and diuretics. If the underestimated AI is resolved along with the aortic stenosis, a notable improvement of MR severity in these patients may be observed.

It has previously been argued that the concept of patient-prosthesis mismatch may affect the success of corrective AV operations [7, 8, 23]. Our study supports previous work documenting the lack of relationship between indexed valve size with death and postoperative functional recovery [24, 25]. The choice of valve size did not appear to impact the resolution of MR. In addition, iEOA was not associated with increased early death nor was it an independent risk factor by multivariable analysis. Performance of aortic root enlargement was unrelated to the risk of death or reduction in MR in our small study population.

Previous studies have used categoric measurements of MR that have been less precise than those used in this study. Because categoric classifications are often too coarse to allow optimal decision making and are prone to observer error and bias, it is important for the surgeon to obtain a quantitative assessment of MR. Our approach was to measure the degree of MR using the VCW method, which has been validated with TEE and is an accepted method that provides an accurate quantitative assessment of the degree of MR for both central and eccentric jets [3, 5, 25]. The VCW is especially appropriate in the operative setting because its accuracy is less dependent on loading conditions [3, 4, 26].

The principal limitation of this study is that it is primarily based on an intraoperative assessment of the MR, with limited postoperative follow-up data. Previous reports have demonstrated that echocardiographic data obtained 10 minutes postoperatively were comparable with data acquired after 1 day [25]. We recognize that the remodeling that occurs after AVR may lead to delayed changes that cannot be immediately observed. Late changes in preload or afterload associated with general anesthesia are additional limitations to interpretation of this study.

In addition, variability of quality and completeness of the recorded echocardiographic studies limited our ability to obtain a complete set of all four desired echocardiographic measurements in 20% of the patients. In these patients, the echocardiographic results did not allow a full set of variables because the goal was to extract the maximum amount of data without including data that were not clearly recorded. As a retrospective study, follow-up echocardiography measurements were incomplete and opportunistic. These were performed in the context of a routine follow-up by the referring cardiologist. Given that an echocardiographic examination may be more likely in the context of unexpected physical examination findings or clinical course, this may represent a biased sample of the overall study population. If so, this bias should tend to make regurgitation appear more likely than it would be in a complete sample.

In conclusion, the results of this study support a conservative, tailored approach to concomitant mitral surgery in patients presenting for correction of aortic stenosis who demonstrate functional regurgitation. Mitral annuloplasty or replacement appears warranted in patients with severe regurgitation. Mitral operations may be avoided in essentially all cases of mild regurgitation. For the large group of patients with moderate regurgitation, identified patient characteristics may aid in selection of patients for whom more aggressive surgical treatment is warranted.


   Appendix
 


   Acknowledgments
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Acknowledgments
References
 
We would like to thank Karen E. Lynch, RN, for providing timely assistance and information throughout this project. We would like to thank Mark S. Adams, BS, RDCS, FASE, for his assistance and teaching. Salary support to Dr Stevens was provided by a fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Clinical Research Initiative and the Rosetti Fund.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and Methods
 Results
 Comment
 Acknowledgments
 References
 

  1. Christenson JT, Jordan B, Bloch A, Schmuziger M. Should a regurgitant mitral valve be replaced simultaneously with a stenotic aortic valve? Texas Heart Inst J 2000;27:350-355.[Medline]
  2. Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Database Specifications for vendors and PGS sites–version 2.52.1http://www.ctsnet.org/file/rptDataSpecifications252_1_ForVendorsPGS.pdf 2000Accessed: April 9, 2004.
  3. Heinle SK, Hall SA, Brickner ME, Willett DL, Grayburn PA. Comparison of vena contracta width by multiplane transesophageal echocardiography with quantitative Doppler assessment of mitral regurgitation Am J Cardiol 1998;81:175-179.[Medline]
  4. Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:777-802.[Medline]
  5. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005;18:1440-1463.[Medline]
  6. Capps SB, Elkins RC, Fronk DM. Body surface area as a predictor of aortic and pulmonary valve diameter J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:975-982.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. 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;108:983-988.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WR, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:783-796.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:963-974.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:1116-1127.[Medline]
  11. Hedeker D. A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model Statist Med 2003;22:1433-1446.
  12. Arom KV, Nicoloff DM, Kersten TE, Northrup 3rd WF, Lindsay WG, Emery RW. Ten-year follow-up study of patients who had double valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical prosthesis J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1989;98:1008-1015.[Abstract]
  13. Adams PB, Otto CM. Lack of improvement in coexisting mitral regurgitation after relief of valvular aortic stenosis Am J Cardiol 1990;66:105-107.[Medline]
  14. Brasch AV, Khan SS, DeRobertis MA, Kong JH, Chiu J, Siegel RJ. Change in mitral regurgitation severity after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis Am J Cardiol 2000;85:1271-1274.[Medline]
  15. Moazami N, Diodato, MD, Moon MR, et al. Does functional mitral regurgitation improve with isolated aortic valve replacement? J Cardiac Surg 2004;19:444-448.[Medline]
  16. Ruel M, Kapila V, Price J, Kulik A, Burwash IG, Mesana TG. Natural history and predictors of outcome in patients with concomitant functional mitral regurgitation at the time of aortic valve replacement Circulation 2006;114:I541-I546.[Medline]
  17. Absil B, Dagenais F, Mathieu P, et al. Does moderate mitral regurgitation impact early or mid-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;24:217-222.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Harris KM, Malenka DJ, Haney MF, et al. Improvement in mitral regurgitation after aortic valve replacement Am J Cardiol 1997;80:741-745.[Medline]
  19. Tunick PA, Gindea A, Kronzon I. Effect of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis on severity of mitral regurgitation Am J Cardiol 1990;65:1219-1221.[Medline]
  20. Eynden FV, Bouchard D, El-Hamamsy I, et al. Effect of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis on severity of mitral regurgitation Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:1279-1284.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Wong DR, Agnihotri AK, Hung JW, et al. Long-term survival after surgical revascularization for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:570-577.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Reed D, Abbott RD, Smucker ML, Kaul S. Prediction of outcome after mitral valve replacement in patients with symptomatic chronic mitral regurgitation. The importance of left atrial size. Circulation 1991;84:23-34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Christakis GT, Buth KJ, Goldman BS, et al. Inaccurate and misleading valve sizing: a proposed standard for valve size nomenclature Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:1198-1203.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Bridges CR, O'Brien SM, Cleveland JC, et al. Association between indices of prosthesis internal orifice size and operative mortality after isolated aortic valve replacement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:1012-1021.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Harpole Jr DH, Gall Jr SA, Wolfe WG, Rankin JS, Jones RH. Effects of valve replacement on ventricular mechanics in mitral regurgitation and aortic stenosis Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62:756-761.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Roberts BJ, Grayburn PA. Color flow imaging of the vena contracta in mitral regurgitation: technical considerations J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:1002-1006.[Medline]

Related Article

Invited Commentary
Daniel H. Drake
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008 86: 63. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Circ Cardiovasc ImagingHome page
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]

Home page
 Eur J Cardiothorac SurgHome page
L. Harling, S. Saso, O. A. Jarral, A. Kourliouros, E. Kidher, and T. Athanasiou
Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with concomitant mitral regurgitation: should the mitral valve be dealt with?
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, November 1, 2011; 40(5): 1087 - 1096.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
D. S. Jeong, P. W. Park, K. Sung, W. S. Kim, J.-H. Yang, T.-G. Jun, and Y. T. Lee
Long-Term Clinical Impact of Functional Mitral Regurgitation After Aortic Valve Replacement
Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2011; 92(4): 1339 - 1345.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
P. Unger, C. Dedobbeleer, G. Van Camp, D. Plein, B. Cosyns, and P. Lancellotti
Republished review: Mitral regurgitation in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement
Postgrad. Med. J., February 1, 2011; 87(1024): 150 - 155.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J Cardiothorac SurgHome page
K. Takeda, G. Matsumiya, T. Sakaguchi, S. Miyagawa, T. Yamauchi, Y. Shudo, H. Izutani, and Y. Sawa
Impact of untreated mild-to-moderate mitral regurgitation at the time of isolated aortic valve replacement on late adverse outcomes
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2010; 37(5): 1033 - 1038.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 HeartHome page
P Unger, C Dedobbeleer, G Van Camp, D Plein, B Cosyns, and P Lancellotti
Mitral regurgitation in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement
Heart, January 1, 2010; 96(1): 9 - 14.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 HeartHome page
N Piazza, A Otten, C Schultz, Y Onuma, H M Garcia-Garcia, E Boersma, P de Jaegere, and P W Serruys
Adherence to patient selection criteria in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 18F CoreValve ReValving System
Heart, January 1, 2010; 96(1): 19 - 26.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Gus J. Vlahakes
Arvind K. Agnihotri
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waisbren, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Agnihotri, A. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waisbren, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Agnihotri, A. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease
Right arrowRelated Article

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS