Key result
Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch linked to ~9-fold greater odds of prosthetic valve dysfunction.
Why the study?
To evaluate the accuracy of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch regarding actual postoperative PPM and assess its association with prosthetic valve dysfunction.
Does predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch accurately reflect actual postoperative mismatch and predict prosthetic valve dysfunction in adult patients after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis?
Cohort (n=205)
Does predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch accurately reflect actual postoperative mismatch and predict prosthetic valve dysfunction in adult patients after aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis?
Effect estimate: OR 9.03
Absolute Event Rate: 53.9% vs 11.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch can identify the presence of actual postoperative mismatch, and moderate or severe mismatch is strongly associated with early prosthetic valve dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) regarding actual PPM measured postoperatively. To assess the association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including adult patients after aortic valve replacement surgery with a biological prosthesis. Predicted PPM status was determined using mean reference effective orifice area indexed to total body surface (iEOA), without considering reference standard deviations. Postoperative PPM status was determined by measuring iEOA within the first 60 postoperative days. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was defined as thrombosis, pannus, valve degeneration, and/or disruption. RESULTS: 205 patients were enrolled between January 2003 and June 2017: predicted PPM was absent in 52 patients (25.4%), moderate in 137 patients (66.8%), and severe in 16 patients (7.8%). After surgery, the actual postoperative iEOA was measured: 53 (25.9%) did not have PPM, 73 had moderate PPM (35.6%), and 79 had severe PPM (38.5%). Predicted PPM identified the presence of hemodynamically significant actual postoperative PPM (OR = 2.56; 95%CI 1.30-5.05; P = .006), though not its degree of severity. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was more frequent among patients with hemodynamically significant PPM (53.9% vs. 11.3%; P < .001), compared to those without PPM. The association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction was maintained after adjusting for gender, age, and ever-smoking (OR = 9.03; P < .001). The incidence of thrombosis or pannus was also nonsignificantly higher in patients with moderate or severe PPM. CONCLUSIONS: Predicted PPM identifies the presence, possibly not the severity, of actual postoperative PPM. Moderate or severe PPM is associated with prosthetic valve dysfunction. Actual postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch measured within 60 postoperative days showed a distinctive hemodynamic profile and presented a stronger association with prosthetic valve dysfunction than predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch. A. Echocardiographic follow-up in patients according to the actual postoperative PPM measured within 60 postoperative days. B. Prediction of prosthetic valve dysfunction based on preoperative predicted PPM or on actual postoperative PPM within 60 postoperative days. PPM: prosthesis-patient mismatch. OR: Odds ratio.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ronderos et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis (n=205). Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch vs. No prosthesis-patient mismatch was evaluated on Prosthetic valve dysfunction (OR 9.03, p=<0.001). Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with a higher rate of prosthetic valve dysfunction compared to no mismatch (53.9% vs. 11.3%; adjusted OR 9.03; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: