Key result
Prosthesis-patient mismatch after biological AVR links to structural valve degeneration but not worse long-term survival.
Why the study?
Ambiguity remains regarding the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement.
Does prosthesis-patient mismatch worsen long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis?
Cohort (n=231)
No
Does prosthesis-patient mismatch worsen long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis?
Absolute Event Rate: 77.7% vs 79%
p-value: p=0.6
Prosthesis-patient mismatch after biological aortic valve replacement is associated with slower left ventricular mass regression, increased risk of structural valve degeneration, and more frequent heart failure hospitalizations, though it does not significantly impact long-term survival.
PPM after biological AVR was associated with higher SVD risk but not survival; leaves open whether mismatch avoidance improves outcomes.
Background. Despite numerous studies, ambiguity remains at present regarding the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on long-term outcomes after aortic valve (AV) replacement. Objective. This study evaluates the effect of PPM on long-term results in patients after AV replacement with a biological prosthesis. Material and methods. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 231 patients who underwent AV replacement with a biological prosthesis from 2010 to 2018 at the Penza Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery. Patients were implanted with the following biological prostheses: Medtronic Mosaic, Edwards PERIMOUNT, Biocor. Results. Moderate PPM was present in 131 patients (56%), and severe PPM in 1 patient (0.7%). The mean follow-up was 78.832 months. There were no significant differences in hospital mortality in patients with and without PPM, 4 (3%) and 3 (2,9%), respectively, p=0.9. In the long-term period, patients with PPM showed a slower regression of left ventricle (LV) mass and recovery of LV contractile function than patients without PPM, p=0.05. There was no significant difference in survival in the long-term follow-up period between patients with and without PPM long-term survival, 77.7% and 79%, respectively, p=0.6. Also, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events and the freedom from adverse events was 90% and 91%; p=0.7. However, there was a tendency to more frequent hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF) exacerbation in the patient group with PPM than in those without PPM, 63.8% and 78%; HR 1.6; 95% CI 0.932.1, p=0.007. There was also a tendency for an increased biological valve structural degeneration in the group with PPM than in the group without PPM 76% and 87%, HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.43.1, p=0.01 According to the Cox regression, the overall postoperative mortality predictors were diabetes mellitus, vascular atherosclerosis HR 5; 95% CI 1.222, p=0.04 and HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.46.6, p=0.01 respectively. Predictors of the risk of hospitalization due to CHF exacerbation were previous myocardial infarction and PPM HR 0.4; 95% CI 0.20.9, p=0.04 and HR 1,5; 95% CI 0.92; p=0.005, respectively PPM HR 2; 95% CI 0.854.1, p=0.01. Conclusion. PPM is a common complication after AV replacement with a biological prosthesis. It is associated with a slower regression of LV mass, an increased risk of structural valve degeneration, and hospitalizations for exacerbated heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Базылев et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement (n=231). Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) vs. No prosthesis-patient mismatch was evaluated on Long-term survival (p=0.6). Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis did not significantly affect long-term survival (77.7% vs 79%, p=0.6) but increased the risk of structural valve degeneration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: