The Journal of heart valve disease · 2009
Patient-prosthesis mismatch in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: impact on quality of life and survival.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Urso Stefano, Sadaba Rafael, Vives Manuel, Trujillo John, Beltrame Sergio, Soriano Beatriz, Piqueras Lucia, Aldamiz-Echevarria Gonzalo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Since the introduction of its theoretical basis, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) following aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the subject of much debate. The study aim was to compare, by a propensity score adjustment, the survival and quality of life in elderly patients with PPM, to those of a population without mismatch. The analysis was focused on elderly patients, as their high prevalence of calcific aortic stenosis may increase the probability to receive a small-sized aortic prosthesis, and consequently to experience postoperative PPM.
METHODS: A total of 163 patients aged > or = 75 years who underwent AVR was analyzed. The median logistic euroSCORE was 7.1%. PPM was considered to be present if the anticipated indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) was < or = 0.85 cm2/m2. The median follow up period was 37.4 months. The patients' quality of life was evaluated using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey test.
RESULTS: PPM was present in 43% of the patients. In multivariable analysis, patients with PPM were more often female, more often operated on for aortic degenerative calcification, had a larger body surface area, and more often received a bioprosthesis than those without mismatch. The survival analysis did not highlight any significant difference between the two groups. According to a multivariable analysis, the SF-12 physical component score of PPM patients was significantly inferior to that in patients without mismatch (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that moderate PPM does not have a negative impact on mid-term mortality in elderly patients after AVR. However, PPM was associated with a reduced quality of life in this elderly population.
METHODS: A total of 163 patients aged > or = 75 years who underwent AVR was analyzed. The median logistic euroSCORE was 7.1%. PPM was considered to be present if the anticipated indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) was < or = 0.85 cm2/m2. The median follow up period was 37.4 months. The patients' quality of life was evaluated using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey test.
RESULTS: PPM was present in 43% of the patients. In multivariable analysis, patients with PPM were more often female, more often operated on for aortic degenerative calcification, had a larger body surface area, and more often received a bioprosthesis than those without mismatch. The survival analysis did not highlight any significant difference between the two groups. According to a multivariable analysis, the SF-12 physical component score of PPM patients was significantly inferior to that in patients without mismatch (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that moderate PPM does not have a negative impact on mid-term mortality in elderly patients after AVR. However, PPM was associated with a reduced quality of life in this elderly population.