General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2008
Patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the elderly.
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.
Ryomoto Masaaki, Mitsuno Masataka, Yamamura Mitsuhiro, Tanaka Hiroe, Kobayashi Yasuhiko, Fukui Shinya, Tsujiya Noriko, Kajiyama Tetsuya, Miyamoto Yuji
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on survival and left ventricular mass regression in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients >65 years old who underwent isolated AVR from 1990 and 2007 were analyzed retrospectively. A bioprosthesis was used in 42 cases and a mechanical valve in 59. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 years (0.1-14.2 years). The indexed effective orifice area (i-EOA) was determined from echocardiographic data in clinical reports in the literature and indexed to body surface area (cm2/m2). Mild PPM was defined as an i-EOA between 0.65 and 0.85. We also evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and the left ventricular mass (LVM) index.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (33.6%) had PPM. No patient had an i-EOA <0.65. Freedom from valve-related death was 86.3% +/- 6.7% in the PPM-negative group and 85.7% +/- 7.9% in the PPM-positive group at 5 years after AVR. The mean LVM index (g/m2) decreased significantly (P < 0.01), from 239.2 to 167.4 in the PPM-negative group and from 229.1 to 154.4 in the PPM-positive group, respectively. NYHA functional status was excellent at late follow-up in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Mild PPM occurred in a large proportion of elderly patients undergoing AVR but did not affect midterm survival or LV mass regression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients >65 years old who underwent isolated AVR from 1990 and 2007 were analyzed retrospectively. A bioprosthesis was used in 42 cases and a mechanical valve in 59. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 years (0.1-14.2 years). The indexed effective orifice area (i-EOA) was determined from echocardiographic data in clinical reports in the literature and indexed to body surface area (cm2/m2). Mild PPM was defined as an i-EOA between 0.65 and 0.85. We also evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and the left ventricular mass (LVM) index.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (33.6%) had PPM. No patient had an i-EOA <0.65. Freedom from valve-related death was 86.3% +/- 6.7% in the PPM-negative group and 85.7% +/- 7.9% in the PPM-positive group at 5 years after AVR. The mean LVM index (g/m2) decreased significantly (P < 0.01), from 239.2 to 167.4 in the PPM-negative group and from 229.1 to 154.4 in the PPM-positive group, respectively. NYHA functional status was excellent at late follow-up in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Mild PPM occurred in a large proportion of elderly patients undergoing AVR but did not affect midterm survival or LV mass regression.