Dataset Information

Factors determining patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement--a prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

"Patient-prosthesis mismatch" (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been reported to increase morbidity and mortality. Although algorithms have been developed to avoid PPM, factors favouring its occurrence have not been well defined.

Design and setting

This was a prospective cohort study performed at the Medical University of Vienna.

Patients

361 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for isolated severe aortic stenosis were enrolled.

Main outcome measures

Patient- as well as prosthesis-related factors determining the occurrence of moderate and severe PPM (defined as effective orifice area indexed to body surface area ? 0.8 cm(2)/m(2)) were studied.

Results

Postoperatively, 172 patients (48%) were diagnosed with PPM. The fact that predominantly female patients were affected (58% with PPM diagnosis in women versus 36% in men, p<0.001) was explained by the finding that they had smaller aortic root diameters (30.5±4.7 mm versus 35.3±4.2 mm, p<0.0001) and a higher proportion of bioprosthetic valves (82% versus 62%, p<0.0001), both independent predictors of PPM (aortic root diameter: OR 0.009 [95% CI, 0.004;0.013]; p?=?0.0003, presence of bioprosthetic valve: OR 0.126 [95% CI, 0.078;0.175]; p<0.0001).

Conclusions

The occurrence of PPM is determined by aortic root diameter and prosthesis type. Novel sutureless bioprostheses with optimized hemodynamic performance or transcatheter aortic valves may become a promising alternative to conventional bioprosthetic valves in the future.

SUBMITTER: Bonderman D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3849375 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors determining patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement--a prospective cohort study.

Bonderman Diana D Graf Alexandra A Kammerlander Andreas A AA Kocher Alfred A Laufer Guenter G Lang Irene M IM Mascherbauer Julia J

PloS one 20131203 12

<h4>Objective</h4>"Patient-prosthesis mismatch" (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been reported to increase morbidity and mortality. Although algorithms have been developed to avoid PPM, factors favouring its occurrence have not been well defined.<h4>Design and setting</h4>This was a prospective cohort study performed at the Medical University of Vienna.<h4>Patients</h4>361 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for isolated severe aortic stenosis were enrolled. ...[more]

PMID: 24312608

Similar Datasets

Project description:Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort.The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if the indexed EOA was ?0.65 but ?0.85 cm(2)/m(2), or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts.The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02).In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).

Project description:Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ?$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Dataset Information

Factors determining patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement--a prospective cohort study.

Objective

Design and setting

Patients

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Factors determining patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement--a prospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets