The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 133, Issue 6 , Pages 1464-1473.e3, June 2007

The impact of patient–prosthesis mismatch on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement

Read at the Eighty-sixth Annual Meeting of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, April 29–May 2, 2006, Philadelphia, Pa.

Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Received 29 May 2006; received in revised form 28 November 2006; accepted 12 December 2006. published online 27 April 2007.

Objectives

The incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch after mitral valve replacement and its effect on late outcomes have remained unclear. This study was conducted to determine the impact of patient–prosthesis mismatch on recurrent congestive heart failure, postoperative pulmonary hypertension, and late survival after mitral valve replacement.

Methods

Between 1985 and 2005, 884 patients, with a mean age 63 ± 12 years, underwent mitral valve replacement (657 mechanical, 227 bioprosthesis) with contemporary prostheses. Mean clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was 5.1 ± 4.1 years (4344 patient-years). Patient–prosthesis mismatch was defined as an indexed effective orifice area of 1.25 cm2/m2 or less. Parametric and nonparametric analyses were used to determine predictors of outcomes.

Results

The incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch was 32%. Predictors of recurrent congestive heart failure included low indexed effective orifice area, low ejection fraction, elevated postoperative mean mitral gradient, and use of a bioprosthesis (P ≤ .05). Postoperative pulmonary hypertension was associated with small mitral size, elevated mean mitral gradient, low ejection fraction, and atrial fibrillation (P ≤ .05); indexed effective orifice area did not predict postoperative pulmonary hypertension (P = .89). Poor late survival was predicted by low indexed effective orifice area (≤1.25 cm2/m2), New York Heart Association class 3 or 4, elevated right ventricular pressure, stroke, older age, coronary artery disease, and bioprosthesis use (P ≤ .05). Survival for patients with patient–prosthesis mismatch versus those without patient–prosthesis mismatch at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years was 91% versus 95%, 85% versus 90%, 78% versus 86%, and 65% versus 75%, respectively (P = .05).

Conclusions

Patient–prosthesis mismatch after mitral valve replacement is not uncommon; it is associated with recurrence of congestive heart failure and postoperative pulmonary hypertension and independently affected late survival. This study emphasizes the importance of implanting a sufficiently large prosthesis in adult patients undergoing mitral valve replacement.

CTSNet classification: 35

Abbreviations and Acronyms: EOA, effective orifice area, GOA, geometric orifice area, IEOA, indexed effective orifice area, IGOA, indexed geometric orifice area, MVPPM, mitral valve patient–prosthesis mismatch, MVR, mitral valve replacement, PHTN, pulmonary hypertension, PPM, patient–prosthesis mismatch, RVSP, right ventricular systolic pressure, SPAP, systolic pulmonary artery pressure

 

PII: S0022-5223(07)00358-3

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.12.071

Refers to article:

  • Prosthesis–patient mismatch in the mitral position: Old concept, new evidences

    Philippe Pibarot, Jean G. Dumesnil
    The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery June 2007 (Vol. 133, Issue 6, Pages 1405-1408)

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume 133, Issue 6 , Pages 1464-1473.e3, June 2007