A Case of Redo-Aortic Valve Replacement for a Lillehei-Kaster Valve Implanted 42 Years Ago / 日本心臓血管外科学会雑誌

We present a case of redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a 71-year-old man with a Lillehei-Kaster valve implanted 42 years prior. The patient initially underwent AVR and open mitral commissurotomy procedures for aortic regurgitation complicated with mitral stenosis in 1978 at the age of 29. Thereafter, he was followed at our outpatient clinic and treated without anticoagulant therapy for the initial two decades of the postoperative period. During the long-term follow-up, the mean pressure gradient remained between 40 and 60 mmHg and there were no adverse events noted before occurrence of heart failure triggered by tachycardia and pneumonia. Following improvement of heart failure, redo AVR was performed. There was no structural damage, thrombosis, or Lillehei-Kaster valve opening restrictions, though severe pannus growth on the left ventricle side was observed, which was thought to be the cause of the increased pressure gradient. This is the first known report of redo AVR after many years in a patient who underwent Lillehei-Kaster valve implantation. Furthermore, no other study has noted findings regarding pressure gradient change during the long-term follow-up period in such cases.

The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a controversial issue in current clinical practice. PPM has been reported to have a negative impact on patients' prognosis after aortic valve replacement in several studies, showing increased all-cause and cardiac mortality. Moreover, a close relationship has recently been described between PPM and structural valve deterioration in biological prostheses. In patients at risk for PPM, several issues should be considered, and in the current era of cardiac surgery, preoperative planning should consider the different types of valves available and the various surgical techniques that can be used to prevent PPM. The present paper analyses the state of the art of the PPM issue.

Effect of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Aortic Position on Late-Onset Tricuspid Regurgitation and Clinical Outcomes after Double Valve Replacement

PURPOSE: Significant late-onset tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is unfortunately common after double valve replacement (DVR); however, its underlying factors remain undefined. We evaluated the effect of aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on late-onset TR and clinical outcomes after DVR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the 2392 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between January 1990 and May 2014 at our institution, we retrospectively studied 462 patients who underwent DVR (excluding concomitant tricuspid valvular annuloplasty or replacement). Survival and freedom from grade >3 TR were compared between PPM (n=152) and non-PPM (n=310) groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Although the overall survival rates were similar between the two groups at 5 and 10 years (95%, 91% vs. 96%, 93%, p=0.412), grade >3 TR-free survival was significantly lower in the PPM group (98%, 91% vs. 99%, 95%, p=0.014). Small body-surface area, atrial fibrillation, PPM, and subaortic pannus were risk factors for TR progression. However, aortic prosthesis size and trans-valvular pressure gradient were not significant factors for either TR progression or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Aortic PPM in DVR, regardless of mitral prosthesis size, was associated with late TR progression, but was not significantly correlated with overall survival. Therefore, we recommend careful echocardiographic follow-up for the early detection of TR progression in patients with aortic PPM in DVR.

Patient prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement: An Indian perspective.

Context: Perioperative period. Aims: Occurrence of PPM after AVR, factors associated with PPM, impact on mortality. Settings and Design: Teritary Care Referral Cardiac Centre. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of AVR procedures at a single centre over 4 years was conducted. Demographic, echocardiographic and outcome data were collected from institute database. Rahimtoola criteria of indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were used to stratify patients into PPM categories. Patients with and without PPM were compared for associated factors. Statistical Analysis Used: Independent t-test, chi-square test, logistic regression analysis, ROC-AUC, Youden index. Results: 606 patients with complete data were analysed for PPM. The incidence of mild, moderate and severe PPM was 6.1% (37), 2.5% (15) and 0.5% (3) respectively. There was no impact of PPM on all-cause in-hospital mortality. PPM was observed more with Aortic Stenosis (AS) compared to Aortic Regurgitation (AR) as etiology. Aortic annulus indexed to BSA (iAA) had a very good predictive ability for PPM at <16mm/m2BSA. Conclusions: PPM has lower incidence after AVR in this Indian population and does not increase early mortality. Patients with AS and iAA<16mm/m2BSA should be cautiously dealt with to prevent PPM.

Clinical predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVE: We sought to ascertain predictors of Patient Prosthesis Mismatch, an independent predictor of mortality, in patients with aortic stenosis using bioprosthetic valves. METHOD: We analyzed 2,107 sequential surgeries. Patient Prosthesis Mismatch was calculated using the effective orifice area of the prosthesis divided by the patient's body surface area. We defined nonsignificant, moderate, and severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch as effective orifice area indexes of .0.85 cm²/m, 0.85-0.66 cm²/m², and <0.65 cm²/m², respectively. RESULTS: A total of 311 bioprosthetic patients were identified. The incidence of nonsignificant, moderate, and severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch was 41 percent, 42, and 16 percent, respectively. Severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch was significantly more prevalent in females (82 percent). In severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch, the perfusion and the crossclamp times were considerably lower when compared with nonsignificant Patient Prosthesis Mismatch and moderate Patient Prosthesis Mismatch. Patients with severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch had a significantly higher likelihood of spending time in the intensive care unit and a significantly longer length of stay in the hospital. Body surface area was not different in severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch when compared with nonsignificant Patient Prosthesis Mismatch. In-hospital mortality in patients with nonsignificant, moderate, and severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch was 2.3 percent, 6.1 percent, and 8 percent, respectively. Minimally invasive surgery was significantly associated with moderate Patient Prosthesis Mismatch in 49 percent of the patients, but not with severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch. CONCLUSION: Severe Patient Prosthesis Mismatch is more common in females, but not in those with minimal available body surface area. Though operative times were shorter in these patients, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were longer. Surgeons and cardiologists should be cognizant of these clinical predictors and complications prior to valve surgery.

The Hemodynamic Performance of Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna for Aortic Valve Stenosis / 日本心臓血管外科学会雑誌

This study compared the hemodynamic performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthesis (Magna) with the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT bioprosthesis (CEP) for aortic valve stenosis (AS). Between January 2005 and May 2010, 164 patients underwent aortic valve replacement for AS with either the Magna (<i>n</i>=68) or the CEP (<i>n</i>=96) at our institute. Patients undergoing a concomitant mitral valve procedure were excluded from this study. The 21-mm Magna and CEP prostheses were the most frequently used during this period. Transthoracic echocardiography was postoperatively performed within 2 weeks. The peak velocity (PV) of the Magna was significantly lower than that of the CEP (2.59±0.36 vs. 2.75±0.47 m/s ; <i>p</i>=0.022). The mean pressure gradient (PG) was not significantly different. For the 19-mm prostheses, the mean PG and PV of the Magna were significantly lower than those of the CEP [16.4±4.5 vs. 19.7±6.4 mmHg ; <i>p</i>=0.034 (PG) and 2.70±0.36 vs. 3.03±0.49 m/s ; <i>p</i>=0.008 (PV)]. The effective orifice area (EOA) of the Magna was larger than that of the CEP [19 mm : 1.29±0.18 vs. 1.11±0.24 cm² (<i>p</i>=0.007) ; 21 mm : 1.46±0.23 vs. 1.42±0.18 cm² (<i>p</i>=0.370) ; and 23 mm : 1.70±0.34 vs. 1.52±0.25 cm² (<i>p</i>=0.134)]. In this study, the EOA of the Magna was approximately 80% of that described in the manufacture's description. Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM ; EOA index≤0.85 cm²/m²) was seen in 26.8% of patients with the Magna and in 47.2% of patients with the CEP (<i>p</i>=0.018). Severe PPM (EOA index≤0.65 cm²/m²) was not seen in any patients with the Magna. The EOA of the 19-mm Magna was significantly larger and the mean PG was lower than those of the 19-mm CEP. Compared with the CEP, the Magna significantly reduced the incidence of PPM, and had superior hemodynamic performance.