Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch can be predicted and is associated with early prosthetic valve dysfunction in aortic bioprosthesis.

Tytuł:
Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch can be predicted and is associated with early prosthetic valve dysfunction in aortic bioprosthesis.
Autorzy:
Ronderos R; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Politi MT; Laboratorio de Estadística Aplicada a las Ciencias de la Salud (LEACS), Departamento de Toxicología y Farmacología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mahia MC; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Castro MF; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sciancalepore A; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Cueva Torres F; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Kuschnir P; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
de la Paz Ricapito M; Cardiac Imaging Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vrancic JM; Cardiac Surgery Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Camporrotondo M; Cardiac Surgery Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Piccinini F; Cardiac Surgery Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Navia D; Cardiac Surgery Department, Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Źródło:
Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) [Echocardiography] 2021 Jun; Vol. 38 (6), pp. 814-824. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 May 15.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Mount Kisco, N.Y. : Futura Pub. Co., [c1984-
MeSH Terms:
Aortic Valve Stenosis*/diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Stenosis*/surgery
Bioprosthesis*/adverse effects
Heart Valve Prosthesis*/adverse effects
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation*/adverse effects
Adult ; Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Valve/surgery ; Humans ; Prosthesis Design ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Treatment Outcome
References:
Pibarot P, Magne J, Leipsic J, et al Imaging for predicting and assessing prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(1):149-162.
Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM, et al The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2018;106(1):14-22.
Sá MPBO, Cavalcanti LRP, Sarargiotto FAS, et al Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on 1-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: meta-analysis of 71,106 patients. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;34(3):318-326.
Bonderman D, Graf A, Kammerlander AA, et al Factors determining patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement-a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81940.
Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22(9):975-1084.
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159-e1195.
Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging. 2016;17(6):589-590.
Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1518-1529.
Nitsche C, Kammerlander AA, Knechtelsdorfer K, et al Determinants of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(2 Pt 1):345-353.
Flameng W, Herregods MC, Vercalsteren M, et al Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010;121(19):2123-2129.
Mahjoub H, Mathieu P, Larose E, et al Determinants of aortic bioprosthetic valve calcification assessed by multidetector CT. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2015;101(6):472-477.
Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, et al Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(1):39-47.
Coisne A, Ninni S, Edmé JL, et al Obesity paradox in the clinical significance of effective prosthetic orifice area after aortic valve replacement. JACC 2019. Cardiovascular imaging, 12(1), 208-210.
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(23):2440-2492.
Dvir D, Bourguignon T, Otto CM, et al Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation. 2018;137(4):388-399.
Tanis W, Habets J, van den Brink RB, et al Differentiation of thrombus from pannus as the cause of acquired mechanical prosthetic heart valve obstruction by non-invasive imaging: a review of the literature. European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging. 2014;15(2):119-129.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. http://www.R-project.org/.
Wickham H. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.
Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I, et al Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2007;93(5):615-620.
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, et al Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2001;71(5 Suppl):S265-S268.
Mannacio VA, Mannacio L, Antignano A, et al Impact of different values of prosthesis-patient mismatch on outcome in male patients with aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2017;18(5):366-373.
Vriesendorp MD, Van Wijngaarden R, Head SJ, et al The fallacy of indexed effective orifice area charts to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch after prosthesis implantation. European heart journal cardiovascular. Imaging. 2020;21(10):1116-1122.
Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, et al Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108(8):983-988.
Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort-a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1323-1334.
Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Dagenais F, et al Long-Term Outcomes Following Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis Implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(13):1401-1412.
Wang M, Furnary AP, Li HF, et al Bioprosthetic aortic valve durability: a meta-regression of published studies. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2017;104(3):1080-1087.
Cartlidge T, Doris MK, Sellers SL, et al Detection and prediction of bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(10):1107-1119.
Mannacio V, Mannacio L, Mango E, et al Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: Analysis of risk factors for early and long-term mortality. J Cardiol. 2017;69(1):333-339.
Ha H, Koo HJ, Huh HK, et al Effect of pannus formation on the prosthetic heart valve: In vitro demonstration using particle image velocimetry. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199792.
Karakoyun S, Ozan Gürsoy M, Yesin M, et al Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Pannus Tissue in Patients with Prosthetic Valve Dysfunction. J Heart Valve Dis. 2016;25(1):104-111.
Schwartz RS, Jr HDR, Topol EJ. The restenosis paradigm revisited: an alternative proposal for cellular mechanisms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20(5):1284-1293.
Teshima H, Hayashida N, Yano H, et al Obstruction of St Jude Medical valves in the aortic position: histology and immunohistochemistry of pannus. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2003;126(2):401-407.
Becker RC, Eisenberg P, Turpie AG. Pathobiologic features and prevention of thrombotic complications associated with prosthetic heart valves: fundamental principles and the contribution of platelets and thrombin. Am Heart J. 2001;141(6):1025-1037.
Carrizo C, Figueroa V, Vilte G, et al Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: a 6 year follow up. Rev Chil Cardiol. 2018;37(1).
Del Corro I, Contreras A, Brenna E. ¿Es posible predecir gradientes transvalvulares elevados en la cirugía valvular aórtica? Rev Fed Arg Cardiol. 2013;43(1):14-17.
Gentry Iii JL, Phelan D, Desai MY, et al The role of stress echocardiography in valvular heart disease: a current appraisal. Cardiology. 2017;137(3):137-150.
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: aortic valve prosthesis; aortic valve replacement; cardiac surgery; doppler echocardiography; thrombus
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20210515 Date Completed: 20210709 Latest Revision: 20210709
Update Code:
20240105
DOI:
10.1111/echo.15068
PMID:
33991141
Czasopismo naukowe
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.
(© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies