Texas Heart Institute journal · 2023
Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Matkovic Milos, Aleksic Nemanja, Bilbija Ilija, Antic Ana, Lazovic Jelena Milin, Cubrilo Marko, Milojevic Aleksandar, Zivkovic Igor, Putnik Svetozar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area.
RESULTS: The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.
METHODS: This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area.
RESULTS: The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.