The small aortic root and the Medtronic Hall valve: ultrafast computed tomography assessment of left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement.
OBJECTIVE
The selection of an appropriate size aortic valve substitute with respect to patient size and life-style, in the presence of a small aortic root, is problematic, and a decision to enlarge the aortic annulus is often arbitrary. An aortic valve substitute-patient mismatch may place an excessive load on the left ventricle resulting in residual left ventricular mass with attendant patient morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the adequacy of the Medtronic Hall valve in the small aortic root using ultrafast computed tomography analysis of left ventricular mass.


METHODS
In 13 patients the smallest Medtronic Hall valves (size 20 and 21; measured internal orifice area of 2.01 cm2 for both) were used to replace the native aortic valve. All patients had aortic stenosis, and left ventricular hypertrophy was established by echocardiography. The mean body surface area was 1.8 +/- 0.2 m2 (range 1.50-2.06 m2) and the mean weight was 75 +/- 15 Kg (range 50-97 Kg). The mean preoperative New York Heart Association functional class was 3.54 +/- 0.5.


RESULTS
There was no operative or late mortality. At a mean follow up of 22 months after aortic valve replacement, the mean left ventricular mass index was 89 +/- 11.4 g/m2 (normal left ventricular mass index by ultrafast computed tomography = 97 +/- 14 g/m2) and mean New York Heart Association functional class was 1.6 +/- 0.8 (p (Binomial) = 0.0001 compared to preoperative). Doppler echocardiogram demonstrated a mean gradient across the prosthetic valve of 17 +/- 7 mmHg. There was no trend towards greater left ventricular mass index in patients with greater body surface area or weight. In no patient was the aortic annulus enlarged.


CONCLUSIONS
Trends from this preliminary data suggest that implanting the smallest Medtronic-Hall aortic valves (sizes 20 and 21) results in normal left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement in patients up to a body surface area of 2.06 m2 and provides support for the notion that an aortic annulus enlarging procedure was not necessary in this group of patients.
Anderson
W A
WA
Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, New Jersey, USA.
Ilkowski
D A
DA
Eldredge
J
J
Cha
R
R
Chen
C
C
Waters
D
D
Mahan
V L
VL
Anolik
G
G
Laub
G W
GW
Fernandez
J
J
McGrath
L B
LB
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001024:Aortic Valve Stenosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D001705:Bioprosthesis / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015150:Echocardiography, Doppler; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology*; D011379:Prognosis; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D016277:Ventricular Function, Left / Q000502:physiology