Rodríguez-Durán LE, Arellano-Juárez L, Lezama-Urtecho CA, Hidalgo-Vidal J

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 1-4
PDF size: 153.35 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To know patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement with supraanular and intraanular techniques in our institution.
Material and methods. From January 01, 2012 to december 31, 2014, 53 patientes were analyzed. Median age of 58.6 year (range, 30 to 94); 27 were male (51%). 36 replacements were performed with supraanular technique and 17 with intraanular technique. All cases undergone mechanical aortic valve replacement.
Results. Nine patients (16.9%) showed patient-prosthesis mismatch. Five (5/36= 13.8%) were with supraanular technique, and 4 (4/17= 23.5%) with intraanular technique. With relationship to both groups, supraanular vs intraanular, 31 (86%) vs 13 (76.4%) showed an indexed efective orifice area ≥ 0.85 (p ‹ 0.01), 5 (13.8%) vs 3 (17.6%) between 0.85 – 0.65 (p=0.01), and 0 vs 1 (5.9%) ‹ 0.65 (p=0.01), respectively.
Conclusions. Supraanular technique allows better results in order to avoid the aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch. Largest effective areas were seen by using supraanular technique.

REFERENCES

1. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation1978;58:20-4.

2. Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel., Calvo, David., García, José M., Influence of Patient-Prosthesis Mistmatch in the Octagenarian Undergoing Surgery for AorticValve Replacement Due to Severe Stenosis. Rev Esp Cardiol 2011;64:774-9.

3. Deanda A Jr. Pro: patient-prosthetic mismatch in aortic valve replacement. J CardiothoracVasc Anesth. 2014;28:181-3.

4. Vernick WJ. Con: Patient-Prosthetic Now Is Not an Important Consideration inthe Majority of Patients After Aortic Valve Replacement. J Cardiothor Vasc Anest,2014,28:184-8.

5. Helder MRK, Ugur M, Bavaria JE, et al. The effect of postoperative medical treatmenton left ventricular mass regression after valve replacement. J Thorac CardiovascSurg, 2015;149; 781-6.

6. Mothy D, Dumesnil, JG, Echahidi N, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatchon long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol,2009;53:39-47.

7. Bianco JC, Qizilbash B, Carrier M, et al. Is patient-prosthesis mismatch a perioperativepredictor of long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement?. J CardiothoracVasc Anest 2013;27:647-53.

8. Pompa JJ, Khabbaz K. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after “high risk” aortic valvereplacement, J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1335-8.

9. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impactand prevention. Heart 2006;92:1022–9.

10. Grupper A, Beigel R, Maor E, et al. Survival after intervention in patients with lowgradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved Left ventricular function. J ThoracCardiovasc Surg, 2014;148: 2823-8.

11. Monin JL. Prosthesis patient mismatch: myth or reality? Heart 2009;95;948-52.

12. Haverich A, Wahlers TC, Borger MA, et al. Three-year hemodynamic performance,Left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic-patient mismatch afterrapid deployment aortic valve replacement in 287 patients. J Thorac CardiovascSurg, 2014, 148:2854-61.

13. Takagi H, Yamamoto H, Iwata K, Goto SN, Umemoto T.A. Meta-analysis of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement on late mortality. Int J Cardiol2012;159:150-4.

14. Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch oncardiac events and mid-term mortality after aortic valve replacement in patientswith pure aortic stenosis. Curculation 2006;113:570-6.

15. Mothy-Echahidi D, Maluf FF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatchon long-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanicalprosthesis in the aortic position. Circulation 2006;113:420-6.