Influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on diastolic heart failure after aortic valve replacement.
BACKGROUND
Bioprostheses for supraannular placement have been developed to optimize the hemodynamic performance after aortic valve replacement. To evaluate the potential benefit of this design, we analyzed the influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on diastolic function and left ventricular mass regression and evaluated the clinical performance of the Sorin Soprano and Medtronic Mosaic in the aortic position.


METHODS
A total of 372 patients underwent aortic valve replacement between July 2004 and February 2007, receiving either a Sorin Soprano (n = 235) or a Medtronic Mosaic (n = 137) prosthetic valve. Echocardiographic and clinical data were collected prospectively, and follow-up was performed in April 2007. Multivariate analyses were used to identify differences in hemodynamic performance, diastolic function, left ventricular mass regression, and predictors of impaired survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to compare postoperative outcomes.


RESULTS
The 30-day mortality was 1.7% (4 of 235 patients) in the Sorin Soprano group and 2.9% (4 of 137 patients) in the Medtronic Mosaic group (p = 0.473). Neither prosthesis-patient mismatch nor type of prosthesis was a significant predictor of early or late mortality. Diastolic heart failure was a predictor of poor survival (p = 0.004); however, the recovery of diastolic function was not significantly influenced by prosthesis-patient mismatch. Neither moderate (indexed effective orifice area < 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) nor severe (indexed effective orifice area < 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) prosthesis-patient mismatch resulted in a significantly impaired left ventricular mass regression.


CONCLUSIONS
Prosthesis-patient mismatch was not an independent predictor of poor survival, impaired left ventricular mass regression, or recovery of diastolic function. The Sorin Soprano and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprostheses demonstrated comparable hemodynamic performance and excellent clinical outcome without signs of structural valve deterioration during follow-up.
Nozohoor
Shahab
S
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Nilsson
Johan
J
Lührs
Carsten
C
Roijer
Anders
A
Sjögren
Johan
J
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001021:Aortic Valve / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D001705:Bioprosthesis; D002423:Cause of Death; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D054144:Heart Failure, Diastolic / Q000209:etiology / Q000401:mortality*; D006349:Heart Valve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis; D019918:Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods; D006439:Hemodynamics / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011336:Probability; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D017755:Prosthesis Fitting; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D015996:Survival Rate; D013997:Time Factors