Objective We aimed to analyse the incidence of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) and elevated gradients after aortic valve in valve (ViV), and to evaluate predictors and associations with clinical outcomes of this adverse event.
Methods A total of 910 aortic ViV patients were investigated. Elevated residual gradients were defined as ≥20 mm Hg. PPM was identified based on the indexed effective orifice area (EOA), measured by echocardiography, and patient body mass index (BMI). Moderate and severe PPM (cases) were defined by European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) criteria and compared with patients without PPM (controls).
Results Moderate or greater PPM was found in 61% of the patients, and severe in 24.6%. Elevated residual gradients were found in 27.9%. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of lower indexed EOA and therefore severe PPM were higher gradients of the failed bioprosthesis at baseline (unstandardised beta −0.023; 95% CI −0.032 to –0.014; P<0.001), a stented (vs a stentless) surgical bioprosthesis (unstandardised beta −0.11; 95% CI −0.161 to –0.071; P<0.001), higher BMI (unstandardised beta −0.01; 95% CI −0.013 to –0.007; P<0.001) and implantation of a SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3 transcatheter device (unstandardised beta −0.064; 95% CI −0.095 to –0.032; P<0.001). Neither severe PPM nor elevated gradients had an association with VARC II-defined outcomes or 1-year survival (90.9% severe vs 91.5% moderate vs 89.3% none, P=0.44).
Conclusions Severe PPM and elevated gradients after aortic ViV are very common but were not associated with short-term survival and clinical outcomes. The long-term effect of poor post-ViV haemodynamics on clinical outcomes requires further evaluation.
- valve disease surgery
- transcatheter valve interventions
- valvular heart disease
- prosthetic heart valves
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors SB, ME, MS, PP, RL and DD were responsible for the drafting of the manuscript. MS was responsible for the acquisition of data and statistical analysis. SB, RL and DD were responsible for the organisation and supervision of the study. JW, LC, SW, IG, J-MS, EH, MN, DMH, PP, AC, NB, EF, MGC, GB, TLJ, AK, MJR, AC, VG-R, SA, NMVM, CJR, J-MS, SG, TZ, DC, RB and RK assisted with acquisition of data and provided critical comments and revision for intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests DD is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott. SB is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and a proctor for Boston Scientific and JenaValve. RL is a member of the Medtronic advisory board. SG is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Surmodics, Osprey Medical and Boston Scientific and also repots research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and VA Office of Research and Development. EF reports consulting and proctoring for Edwards Lifesciences. DH is a member of the Medtronic advisory board. TZ reports lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. MJR is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific. SW reports institutional research grants from Amgen, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik and St. Jude Medical. NMvM reports research grant support from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Claret and Essential Medical. NB has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott. AC is part of the speakers bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Abbott, and also reports proctoring for Medtronic. J-MS reports research grants and speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.