Aortic valve replacement in small patients.

OBJECTIVES

Asians are smaller than Europeans and North Americans, but aortic valve replacement (AVR) in small patients has not been examined. We aimed to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of AVR between small and non-small patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively divided 173 patients who underwent AVR into small (S, n = 95) and non-small (NS, n = 78) groups according to body surface area (≤1.6 in men, ≤1.5 in women) and analyzed differences in baseline characteristics, procedural and post-procedural variables, and survival.

RESULTS

Mean age differed significantly between the S and NS groups (71.9 ± 11.2 vs. 66.2 ± 9.8 years), as did the proportion of women (60.0% vs. 24.4%). Implanted valves (19.6 ± 1.6 mm vs. 20.7 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller and more bioprosthetic valves (57.9% vs. 41.0%) were used in the S group. Effective orifice area index and the rate of moderate and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch were not significantly different. No significant intergroup differences were found in hospitalization duration, 30-day mortality, survival rates, or valve related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Small patients were older and the proportion of women was higher. The implanted aortic valves were smaller and more were biological prostheses. However, mortality rate did not differ and short- and mid-term outcomes were safe and favorable.