Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on the Regression of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation After Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement With a Bioprosthetic Valve in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background— Secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) is generally reduced after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there is important interindividual variability in the magnitude of this reduction. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) may hinder normalization of left ventricular geometry and pressure overload following AVR, therefore we aimed to investigate the relationship between PPM and regression of SMR following AVR for aortic valve stenosis. Methods and Results— A total of 419 patients with AS who underwent isolated AVR at 2 institutions and presenting moderate SMR (mitral regurgitant volume 30 to 45 mL/beat) not considered for surgical correction were included in this study. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up were completed at a median follow-up time of 37 months. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area ⩽0.85 cm2/m2 and was found in 170/419 patients (40.6%). There were no significant differences in baseline and operative characteristics between patients with or without PPM. Patients with PPM had less regression of SMR following AVR compared with those with no PPM (change in mitral regurgitant volume:−11±4 versus −17±5 mL, respectively; P<0.0001). Variables significantly associated with postoperative change in mitral regurgitant volume on univariable analysis were entered in a multivariable linear regression model, which showed indexed effective orifice area (P<0.0001) and left atrial diameter (P=0.006) to be independently associated with mitral regurgitant volume improvement. Patients with PPM also had less postoperative improvement in 6-minute walking test distance (80±78 versus 42±41 m, P<0.0001). Conclusions— PPM is associated with lesser regression of SMR following AVR. This unfavorable effect was associated with worse functional capacity. These findings emphasize the importance of operative strategies aiming to prevent PPM in patients with aortic valve stenosis and concomitant SMR.

[1]  P. Pibarot,et al.  The relevance of prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine.

[2]  M. Ruel,et al.  Natural History and Predictors of Outcome in Patients With Concomitant Functional Mitral Regurgitation at the Time of Aortic Valve Replacement , 2006, Circulation.

[3]  Bijoy K Khandheria,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Card , 2009, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[4]  A. Cheung,et al.  Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years. , 2009, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[5]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Progression of aortic stenosis in 394 patients: relation to changes in myocardial and mitral valve dysfunction. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  G. Vlahakes,et al.  Changes in mitral regurgitation after replacement of the stenotic aortic valve. , 2008, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[8]  F. Dagenais,et al.  Does moderate mitral regurgitation impact early or mid-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis? , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[9]  R. Siegel,et al.  Change in mitral regurgitation severity after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. , 2000, The American journal of cardiology.

[10]  S. Rahimtoola,et al.  The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. , 1978, Circulation.

[11]  W. Baumgartner,et al.  Aortic Valve Replacement and Concomitant Mitral Valve Regurgitation in the Elderly: Impact on Survival and Functional Outcome , 2005, Circulation.

[12]  G Van Camp,et al.  Impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on mitral regurgitation after aortic valve replacement , 2010, Heart.

[13]  E. Olalla,et al.  Incidence, associated factors and evolution of non-severe functional mitral regurgitation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement. , 2008, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[14]  P. Come,et al.  Prediction of severity of aortic stenosis: accuracy of multiple noninvasive parameters. , 1988, The American journal of medicine.

[15]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention , 2005, Heart.

[16]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Patient prosthesis mismatch affects short- and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. , 2006, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[17]  Bittner,et al.  Prediction of mortality and morbidity with a 6-minute walk test in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. SOLVD Investigators. , 1993, JAMA.

[18]  Jeevanantham Rajeswaran,et al.  Impact of mitral valve annuloplasty combined with revascularization in patients with functional ischemic mitral regurgitation. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  A. Della Corte,et al.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch in the elderly: survival, ventricular mass regression, and quality of life. , 2008, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  J. Zamorano,et al.  European Association of Echocardiography recommendations for the assessment of valvular regurgitation. Part 2: mitral and tricuspid regurgitation (native valve disease). , 2010, European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology.

[21]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Prosthetic Heart Valves Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long-Term Management , 2009 .

[22]  R. P. Cochran,et al.  Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Concomitant Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery in Northern New England , 2009, Circulation.

[23]  William J. Rogers,et al.  Prediction of Mortality and Morbidity With a 6-Minute Walk Test in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction , 1993 .

[24]  T. Sundt,et al.  Management of moderate functional mitral regurgitation at the time of aortic valve replacement: is concomitant mitral valve repair necessary? , 2009, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[25]  William Stewart,et al.  Recommendations for chamber quantification. , 2006, European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology.