Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method?
  1. Sabine Bleiziffer (bleiziffer{at}
  1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
    1. Walter B Eichinger (eichinger{at}
    1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
      1. Ina Hettich (wagner{at}
      1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
        1. Ralf Guenzinger (guenzinger{at}
        1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
          1. Daniel Ruzicka (ruzicka{at}
          1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
            1. Robert Bauernschmitt (bauernschmitt{at}
            1. German Heart Center Munich, Germany
              1. Ruediger Lange (lange{at}
              1. German Heart Center, Germany


                Objective To predict the occurrence of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR), the surgeon needs to estimate the postoperative indexed effective orifice area (EOAI). The aim of this study was to compare different methods of predicting VP-PM.

                Methods The effective orifice area (EOA) of 383 patients who had undergone AVR between July 2000 and January 2005 with various aortic valve prostheses was obtained echocardiographically 6 months postoperatively. We tested the efficacy of (#1) EOAI calculated from echo data obtained in our own laboratory, (#2) indexed geometric orifice area (GOAI), (#3) EOAI estimated from charts provided by prosthesis manufacturers (which are based either on in-vitro or on echo data), and (#4) EOAI estimated from reference echo data published in the literature to predict VP-PM.

                Results Sensitivity and specifity to predict VP-PM were 53% and 83% (method #1), 80% and 53% (charts based on echo data, parts of method #3), and 71% and 67% (method #4) using echocardiography-derived reference data. The sensitivity of method #2 and of charts based on in-vitro data (parts of method #3) to predict VP-PM was 0-17%. The incidence of severe VP-PM could be reduced from 8.7% to 0.8% after the introduction of the systematic estimation of the EOAI at the time of operation (p=0.003, Method #1).

                Conclusions The best method of predicting VP-PM is the use of echocardiography-derived mean EOAs, while the use of in- vitro data or the GOA is unreliable. After the surgeon’s anticipation of VP-PM prior to AVR, the incidence of VP- PM could be reduced.

                • echocardiography
                • prosthesis
                • surgery
                • valves

                Statistics from

                Request Permissions

                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.

                Linked Articles