The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2011
Defining patient-prosthesis mismatch and its effect on survival in patients with impaired ejection fraction.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cotoni David A, Palac Robert T, Dacey Lawrence J, O'Rourke Daniel J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: How best to define patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) continues to be debated. Over time, the indexed effective orifice area has become the most widely used method. However, the clinical relevance of PPM remains controversial.
METHODS: The indexed geometric orifice area and indexed effective orifice area were calculated for 143 patients having undergone aortic valve replacement with a normal left ventricular function 0.45 or less. Using the indexed geometric orifice area method, PPM was defined as nonsignificant if 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or greater and as significant if less than 1.2 cm(2)/m(2). Using the indexed effective orifice area method, PPM was considered as nonsignificant if greater than 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), as moderate if greater than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and less than or equal to 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and as severe PPM if 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) or less.
RESULTS: The number of patients classified as having PPM differed according to the method used to predict its presence (PPM: Effective orifice area method = 72.7%; geometric method = 19.6%). Regardless of the method used to classify PPM there was no significant effect on mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.65 at 1 year, 0.99 at 5 years, 0.92 at 9 years; p = not significant). The postoperative mean transvalvular gradient (17.1 ± 6.5 mm Hg) and left ventricular function (0.50 ± 0.145) improved significantly compared with the preoperative findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The method used to calculate PPM resulted in significant classification discordance. However, regardless of classification, the presence of PPM did not adversely affect long-term outcome.
METHODS: The indexed geometric orifice area and indexed effective orifice area were calculated for 143 patients having undergone aortic valve replacement with a normal left ventricular function 0.45 or less. Using the indexed geometric orifice area method, PPM was defined as nonsignificant if 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) or greater and as significant if less than 1.2 cm(2)/m(2). Using the indexed effective orifice area method, PPM was considered as nonsignificant if greater than 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), as moderate if greater than 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and less than or equal to 0.85 cm(2)/m(2), and as severe PPM if 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) or less.
RESULTS: The number of patients classified as having PPM differed according to the method used to predict its presence (PPM: Effective orifice area method = 72.7%; geometric method = 19.6%). Regardless of the method used to classify PPM there was no significant effect on mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.65 at 1 year, 0.99 at 5 years, 0.92 at 9 years; p = not significant). The postoperative mean transvalvular gradient (17.1 ± 6.5 mm Hg) and left ventricular function (0.50 ± 0.145) improved significantly compared with the preoperative findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The method used to calculate PPM resulted in significant classification discordance. However, regardless of classification, the presence of PPM did not adversely affect long-term outcome.