Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation - predictors, incidence and impact on clinical efficacy. A preliminary study

被引:4
|
作者
Zbronski, Karol [1 ,2 ]
Rymuza, Bartosz [1 ,2 ]
Scislo, Piotr [1 ,2 ]
Grodecki, Kajetan [1 ,2 ]
Dobkowska, Paulina [1 ,2 ]
Wawrzacz, Marek [1 ,2 ]
Wilimski, Radoslaw [3 ]
Slowikowska, Anna [3 ]
Kochman, Janusz [1 ,2 ]
Filipiak, Krzysztof J. [1 ,2 ]
Opolski, Grzegorz [1 ,2 ]
Huczek, Zenon [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Warsaw, Chair 1, Warsaw, Poland
[2] Med Univ Warsaw, Dept Cardiol, Warsaw, Poland
[3] Med Univ Warsaw, Dept Cardiac Surg, Warsaw, Poland
来源
POSTEPY W KARDIOLOGII INTERWENCYJNEJ | 2017年 / 13卷 / 04期
关键词
transcatheter aortic valve implantation; patient-prosthesis mismatch; effective orifice area; HEMODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE; STENOSIS; REPLACEMENT; SURVIVAL; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.5114/aic.2017.71608
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is relatively frequent after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and negatively impacts prognosis. Aim: We sought to determine the frequency and clinical effects of PPM after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Material and methods: Overall, 238 patients who underwent TAVI were screened. Moderate PPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) between 0.65 and 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and severe PPM as < 0.65 cm(2)/m(2). All-cause mortality and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) defined composite of clinical efficacy at 1 year were the primary endpoints. Results: Finally, 201 patients were included (mean age: 79.6 +/- 7.4 years, 52% females). The femoral artery served as the delivery route in 79% and most of the prostheses were self-expanding (68%). Any PPM was present in 48 (24%) subjects, and only 7 (3.5%) had severe PPM. Body surface area (BSA) independently predicted any PPM (OR = 16.9, p < 0.001) whereas post-dilation tended to protect against PPM (OR = 0.46, p = 0.09). All-cause mortality was similar in patients with moderate or severe PPM as compared to those with no PPM (14.6% vs. 14.3% vs. 13.1%, respectively, log-rank p = 0.98). Neither moderate (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.8-3.2, p = 0.16) nor severe PPM (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.36-7.7, p = 0.51) had a significant impact on composite endpoint, or its elements, with the exception of transvalvular pressure gradient > 20 mm Hg. Conclusions: Severe PPM after TAVI is rare, can be predicted by larger BSA and does not seem to affect mid-term mortality or composite clinical outcome. Larger studies are needed to find different independent predictors of PPM and elucidate its impact in terms of device durability and long-term clinical efficacy.
引用
收藏
页码:281 / 287
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Incidence and impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve implantation
    Seoudy, Hatim
    Guessefeld, Nathalie
    Frank, Johanne
    Freitag-Wolf, Sandra
    Lutter, Georg
    Eden, Matthias
    Rangrez, AshrafYusuf
    Kuhn, Christian
    Frey, Norbert
    Frank, Derk
    CLINICAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 108 (06) : 660 - 668
  • [2] Patient-prosthesis mismatch after transapical aortic valve implantation: Incidence and impact on survival
    Kukucka, Marian
    Pasic, Miralem
    Dreysse, Stephan
    Mladenow, Alexander
    Habazettl, Helmut
    Hetzer, Roland
    Unbehaun, Axel
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2013, 145 (02) : 391 - 397
  • [3] Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes
    Alnajar, Ahmed
    Hamad, Naser
    Azhar, Muhammad Z.
    Mousa, Yaseen
    Arora, Yingyot
    Lamelas, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, 2022, 37 (12) : 5388 - 5394
  • [4] Long-Term Mortality and Impact of Implantation-Associated Factors on the Incidence of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Small Annuli
    Voigtlaender-Buschmann, Lisa
    von der Heide, Ina
    Gossling, Alina
    Waldschmidt, Lara
    Hannen, Laura
    Grundmann, David
    Ludwig, Sebastian
    Demal, Till
    Bhadra, Oliver D.
    Schofer, Niklas
    Reichenspurner, Hermann
    Blankenberg, Stefan
    Conradi, Lenard
    Schaefer, Andreas
    Seiffert, Moritz
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2025, 236 : 23 - 29
  • [5] Predictors and outcomes of patient-prosthesis mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement
    Stamou, Sotiris C.
    Chen, Kai
    James, Taylor M.
    Rothenberg, Mark
    Kapila, Arvind
    Faber, Cristiano
    Nores, Marcos A.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, 2020, 35 (02) : 360 - 366
  • [6] Incidence and Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
    Bleiziffer, Sabine
    Hettich, Ina
    Hutter, Andrea
    Wagner, Anke
    Deutsch, Marcus-Andre
    Piazza, Nicolo
    Lange, Ruediger
    JOURNAL OF HEART VALVE DISEASE, 2013, 22 (03) : 309 - 316
  • [7] Incidence and impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve implantation
    Hatim Seoudy
    Nathalie Güßefeld
    Johanne Frank
    Sandra Freitag-Wolf
    Georg Lutter
    Matthias Eden
    Ashraf Yusuf Rangrez
    Christian Kuhn
    Norbert Frey
    Derk Frank
    Clinical Research in Cardiology, 2019, 108 : 660 - 668
  • [8] Hemodynamic and Clinical Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
    Ewe, See Hooi
    Muratori, Manuela
    Delgado, Victoria
    Pepi, Mauro
    Tamborini, Gloria
    Fusini, Laura
    Klautz, Robert J. M.
    Gripari, Paola
    Bax, Jeroen J.
    Fusari, Melissa
    Schalij, Martin J.
    Marsan, Nina Ajmone
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 58 (18) : 1910 - 1918
  • [9] Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation
    Leone, Pier Pasquale
    Pagnesi, Matteo
    Regazzoli, Damiano
    Latib, Azeem
    GIORNALE ITALIANO DI CARDIOLOGIA, 2020, 21 (11) : 26S - 34S
  • [10] Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
    Takagi, Hisato
    Umemoto, Takuya
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2016, 101 (03) : 872 - 880