Aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch - does it matter? A review for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons

Visan, Alexandru C; Zlibut, Alexandru; Ionescu, Adrian; Stoica, Serban C

doi:10.2478/rjc-2024-0001

Abstract

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is the situation in which the area of an artificial valve is smaller than that of a healthy native valve it replaces. By this definition, all artificial valves demonstrate PPM, but large observational studies and several meta-analyses suggest that it is present in 30-50% of patients after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). PPM has an impact on outcomes only when the indexed aortic valve area (AVAi) is ≤0.85cm2/m2 (moderate PPM) or 0.65cm2/m2 (severe PPM), particularly in patients with reduced LVEF. In transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the prevalence of PPM may be as low as 0.1%, and its impact on hard outcomes is not clear. We present a review of the relevant literature together with a framework for the differential diagnosis of increased pressure gradient and reduced area in prosthetic aortic valves and different strategies to reduce the risk of PPM with SAVR.

References

Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58(1):20–24. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.58.1.20
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magne J, Mathieu P, Dumesnil JG, et al. Impact of prosthesispatient mismatch on survival after mitral valve replacement. Circulation. 2007;115(11):1417–1425. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.631549
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92(8):1022–1029. doi:10.1136/HRT.2005.06736
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 1992;6(Supplement_1):S34–S38. doi:10.1093/EJCTS/6.SUPPLEMENT_1.S34
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108(8):983–988. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000085167.67105.32
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(6):589–590. doi:10.1093/EHJCI/JEW025
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Christakis GT, Buth KJ, Goldman BS, et al. Inaccurate and misleading valve sizing: A proposed standard for valve size nomenclature. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1998;66(4):1198–1203. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00758-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doenst T, Amorim PA, Al-Alam N, Lehmann S, Mukherjee C, Faerber G. Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2011;142(5):1180–1187. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.05.007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Durko AP, Head SJ, Pibarot P, et al. Characteristics of surgical prosthetic heart valves and problems around labeling: A document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)—The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)—American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158(4):1041–1054. doi:10.1016/J.JTCVS.2019.04.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elefteriades JA, Ziganshin BA. Reply: Effective orifice area of prosthetic heart valves—not perfect, but still valuable. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020;159(6):e330–e332. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.01.050
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rothbart RM, Castriz JL, Harding L V., Russo CD, Teague SM. Determination of aortic valve area by two-dimensional and doppler echocardiography in patients with normal and stenotic biprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(4):817–824. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(90)90280-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bray JJH, Ionescu A. Repeated echocardiographic imaging of aortic stenosis: Real-life lessons. Echocardiography. 2021;38(11):1854–1859. doi:10.1111/ECHO.15222
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kebed K, Sun D, Addetia K, Mor-Avi V, Markuzon N, Lang RM. Measurement errors in serial echocardiographic assessments of aortic valve stenosis severity. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;36(3):471. doi:10.1007/S10554-019-01745-Z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goetz LH, Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: motivation, challenges and progress. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):952. doi:10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2018.05.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vriesendorp MD, Groenwold RHH, Herrmann HC, et al. The clinical implications of body surface area as a poor proxy for cardiac output. Structural Heart. 2021;5(6):582–587. doi:10.1080/24748706.2021.1968089
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vulesevic B, Kubota N, Burwash IG, et al. Size-adjusted aortic valve area: refining the definition of severe aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;22(10):1142. doi:10.1093/EHJCI/JEAA295
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tribouilloy C, Bohbot Y, Maréchaux S, et al. Outcome implication of aortic valve area normalized to body size in asymptomatic aortic stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(11). doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.116.005121
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127(1):149–159. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.043
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Koch CG, Khandwala F, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, Blackstone EH. Impact of prosthesis-patient size on functional recovery after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2005;111(24):3221–3229. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.505248
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
He GW, Grunkemeier GL, Gately HL, Furnary AP, Starr A. Up to thirtyyear survival after aortic valve replacement in the small aortic root. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;59(5):1056–1062. doi:10.1016/0003-4975(95)00075-V
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bridges CR, Cleveland JC, Savage EB, et al. Effect of patient and prosthesis size on operative mortality after aortic valve replacement. Annual Meeting of the American Thoracic Surgery 2005.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: Is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(5):963–974. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70091-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WRE, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2003;126(3):783–793. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(03)00591-9
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, et al. Patient prosthesis mismatch is rare after aortic valve replacement: Valve size may be irrelevant. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2002;73(6):1822–1829. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(02)03582-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
David TE. Is prosthesis-patient mismatch a clinically relevant entity? Circulation. 2005;111(24):3186–3187. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.545657
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RLJ, et al. The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1518–1529. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dayan V, Vignolo G, Soca G, Paganini JJ, Brusich D, Pibarot P. Predictors and outcomes of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(8):924–933. doi:10.1016/J.JCMG.2015.10.026
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sá MPBDO, De Carvalho MMB, Sobral Filho DC, et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement and patient–prosthesis mismatch: a meta-analysis of 108 182 patients. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2019;56(1):44–54. doi:10.1093/EJCTS/EZY466
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Van den Eynde J, et al. Impact of prosthesispatient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier–derived individual patient data. Cardiovascular Imaging. 2023;16(3):298–310. doi:10.1016/J.JCMG.2022.07.013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ng ACT, Delgado V, Van Der Kley F, et al. Comparison of aortic root dimensions and geometries before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation by 2- and 3-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and multislice computed tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(1):94–102. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.109.885152
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ribeiro HB, Lerakis S, Gilard M, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis: the TOPAS-TAVI registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(12):1297–1308. doi:10.1016/J.JACC.2018.01.054
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hahn RT, Leipsic J, Douglas PS, et al. Comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of normal transcatheter valve function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(1):25–34. doi:10.1016/J.JCMG.2018.04.010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Winter MP, Zbiral M, Kietaibl A, et al. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic valve function after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;19(4):361–368. doi:10.1093/EHJCI/JEX212
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Okuno T, Khan F, Asami M, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular and intra-annular prostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(21):2173–2182. doi:10.1016/J.JCIN.2019.07.027
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Bogaty P, Pibarot P. Paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved ejection fraction Is associated with higher afterload and reduced survival. Circulation. 2007;115(22):2856–2864. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.668681
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Abbas AE, Ternacle J, Pibarot P, et al. Impact of flow on prosthesispatient mismatch following transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;14(8):E012364. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.012364
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ternacle J, Pibarot P, Herrmann HC, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trial and registry. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021;14(13):1466–1477. doi:10.1016/J.JCIN.2021.03.069
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2009;22(9):975–1014. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2009.07.013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chahal NS, Senior R. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch: Compelling entity or an epiphenomenon of low flow? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;14(8):E012836. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.012836
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Valvular Spotlight: Hemodynamics: New recommendations on how to monitor patients post TAVR/SAVR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jba2NIahjqk
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Niederberger J, Schima H, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Importance of pressure recovery for the assessment of aortic stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Circulation. 1996;94(8):1934–1940. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.94.8.1934
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pibarot P, Garcia D, Dumesnil JG. Energy loss index in aortic stenosis: From fluid mechanics concept to clinical application. Circulation. 2013;127(10):1101–1104. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001130
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sankar S, Ionescu A. A non-coronary use of the pressure wire: accurate assessment of suspected prosthetic valve dysfunction. Revista Societatii de Medicina Interna. 2011;8:61–64. Accessed October 15, 2023. https://www.medicina-interna.ro/articol.php?articol=645&lang=ro
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tanis W, Habets J, Van Den Brink RBA, Symersky P, Budde RPJ, Chamuleau SAJ. Differentiation of thrombus from pannus as the cause of acquired mechanical prosthetic heart valve obstruction by non-invasive imaging: a review of the literature. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15(2):119–129. doi:10.1093/EHJCI/JET127
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hein M, Schoechlin S, Schulz U, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up of Hypoattenuated Leaflet Thickening After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2022;15(11):1113–1122. doi:10.1016/J.JCIN.2022.04.018
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sondergaard L, De Backer O, Kofoed KF, et al. Natural history of subclinical leaflet thrombosis affecting motion in bioprosthetic aortic valves. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2201–2207. doi:10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHX369
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, Baumgartner H. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2003;16(11):1116–1127. doi:10.1067/S0894–7317(03)00638-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1034–1048. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, López-Rodríguez J, Bueno M, Arribas A. The Carpentier-Edwards perimount magna aortic xenograft: a new design with an improved hemodynamic performance. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2006;5(3):263–267. doi:10.1510/ICVTS.2005.120352
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sharma V, Deo S V., Altarabsheh SE, Cho YH, Erwin PJ, Park SJ. Comparison of the early haemodynamics of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2015;47(1):4–10. doi:10.1093/EJCTS/EZU272
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chan J, Dimagli A, Fudulu DP, et al. Trend and early outcomes in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in the United Kingdom. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;9:3709. doi:10.3389/FCVM.2022.1077279/BIBTEX
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) 2022 Summary Report.; 2022. https://www.nicor.org.uk/adult-cardiac-surgery-surgery-audit/
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ghoneim A, Bouhout I, Demers P, et al. Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: A comparative study among different biological options. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016;152(4):1019–1028. doi:10.1016/J.JTCVS.2016.06.058
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tasca G, Vismara R, Mangini A, et al. Comparison of the performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis with two pericardial stented valves on small annuli: An in vitro study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(1):139–144. doi:10.1016/J.ATHORACSUR.2016.05.089
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meco M, Montisci A, Miceli A, et al. Sutureless perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: Meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(4). doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006091
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: A PARTNER trial cohort-A analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1323–1334. doi:10.1016/J.JACC.2014.06.1195
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tang GHL, Sengupta A, Alexis SL, et al. Outcomes of prosthesis-patient mismatch following supra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(9):964–976. doi:10.1016/J.JCIN.2021.03.040
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2183–2191. doi:10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHX141
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, et al. Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012;144(5):1075–1083. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.01.024
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Okamura H, Yamaguchi A, Nagano H, et al. Mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with the 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve. Circ J. 2012;76(2):365–371. doi:10.1253/circj.cj-11-0733
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mizoguchi H, Sakaki M, Inoue K, Iwata T, Tei K, Miura T. Mid-term results of small-sized St. Jude medical regent prosthetic valves (21 mm or less) for small aortic annulus. Heart Vessels. 2013;28(6):769–774. doi:10.1007/S00380-012-0306-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hering D, Piper C, Bergemann R, et al. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications following St. Jude medical valve replacement: Results of the German experience with low-intensity anticoagulation study. Chest. 2005;127(1):53–59. doi:10.1378/chest.127.1.53
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Torella M, Torella D, Chiodini P, et al. LOWERing the INtensity of oral anticoaGulant Therapy in patients with bileaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement: Results from the “LOWERING-IT” Trial. Am Heart J. 2010;160(1):171–178. doi:10.1016/J.AHJ.2010.05.005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ricottini E, Nusca A, Ussia GP, Grigioni F. Antithrombotic treatment for valve prostheses: Which drug, which dose, and when? Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;72:4–14. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2022.05.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reyes G, Badia S, Alvarez P, et al. Results of aortic valve replacement with the supra-annular Sorin Bicarbon Overline prosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21(3):358–363. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/22808838
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Freitas-Ferraz AB, Tirado-Conte G, Dagenais F, et al. Aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. Circulation. 2019;139(23):2685–2702. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038408
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ghoneim A, Bouhout I, Demers P, et al. Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: A comparative study among different biological options. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016;152(4):1019–1028. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.058
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann G, Ogbamicael SA, Jochens A, et al. Impact of patientprosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement on short-term survival: a retrospective single center analysis of 632 consecutive patients with isolated stented biological aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62(6):469–474. doi:10.1055/S-0033-1363498
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: Is there a benefit? Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2008;85(1):94–100. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.07.058
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sá MPBO, Carvalho MMB, Filho DCS, et al. Impact of surgical aortic root enlargement on the outcomes of aortic valve replacement: A metaanalysis of 13 174 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;29(1):74–82. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivy364
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yousef S, Brown JA, Serna-Gallegos D, et al. Impact of aortic root enlargement on patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2023;115(2):396–402. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.05.052
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rocha R V., Manlhiot C, Feindel CM, et al. Surgical enlargement of the aortic root does not increase the operative risk of aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2018;137(15):1585–1594. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030525
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, Nakajima M, Tatsuno K. A new method for prosthetic valve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of the aortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70(5):909–917. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)39673-4
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rastan H, Koncz J. Aortoventriculoplasty. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1976;71(6):920–927. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)40132-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tabatabaie MB, Ghavidel AA, Yousefnia MA, Hoseini S, Javadpour SH, Raesi K. Classic Konno-Rastan procedure: indications and results in the current era. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2006;14(5):377–381. doi:10.1177/021849230601400506
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dhareshwar J, Sundt TM, Dearani JA, Schaff H V., Cook DJ, Orszulak TA. Aortic root enlargement: What are the operative risks? Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2007;134(4):916–924. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.01.09
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root : The problem of aortic valve replacement. Thorax. 1970;25(3):339–346. doi:10.1136/thx.25.3.339
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979;78(3):402–412. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)38105-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rittenhouse EA, Sauvage LR, Stamm SJ, Mansfield PB, Hall DG, Herndon PS. Radical enlargement of the aortic root and outflow tract to allow valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1979;27(4):367–373. doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(10)63319-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Massias SA, Pittams A, Mohamed M, Ahmed S, Younas H, Harky A. Aortic root enlargement: When and how. J Card Surg. 2021;36(1):229–235. doi:10.1111/jocs.15175
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nuñez L, Aguado MG, Pinto AG, Larrea JL. Enlargement of the aortic annulus by resecting the commissure between the left and noncoronary cusps. Tex Heart Inst J. 1983;10(3):301–303. Accessed May 21, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/15227115/?tool=EB
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yang B. A novel simple technique to enlarge the aortic annulus by two valve sizes. JTCVS Tech. 2021;5:13–16. doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2020.10.038
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, et al. Aortic valve reconstruction using self-developed aortic valve plasty system in aortic valve disease. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12(4):550–553. doi:10.1510/ICVTS.2010.253682/2/550FIG4.GIF
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mylonas KS, Tasoudis PT, Pavlopoulos D, Kanakis M, Stavridis GT, Avgerinos D V. Aortic valve neocuspidization using the Ozaki technique: A meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data. Am Heart J. 2023;255:1–11. doi:10.1016/J.AHJ.2022.09.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bentall H, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax. 1968;23(4):338. doi:10.1136/THX.23.4.338
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Perrillo JB. Sixteen-year experience with aortic root replacement. Results of 172 operations. Ann Surg. 1991;214(3):308. doi:10.1097/00000658-199109000-00013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cabrol C, Pavie A, Gandjbakhch I, et al. Complete replacement of the ascending aorta with reimplantation of the coronary arteries: New surgical approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981;81(2):309–315. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)37641-X
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Urbanski PP, Dinstak W, Rents W, Heinz N, Diegeler A. Long-term results after aortic root replacement using self-assembled valve composite grafts in patients with small aortic annulus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18(2):159–163. doi:10.1093/ICVTS/IVT447
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fudulu D, Zakkar M, Stoica S. Aorto-mitral patch enlargement for elective substantial double valve upsizing. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2020;11(1):101–104. doi:10.1177/2150135119881396/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_2150135119881396-FIG3.JPEG
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross DN. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet. 1967;2(7523):956–958. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(67)90794-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sievers HH, Ensminger S. Update on the German ross registry. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;10(4):515–517. doi:10.21037/acs-2020-rp-154
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aboud A, Charitos EI, Fujita B, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(11):1412–1422. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.034
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thom H, Visan AC, Keeney E, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Ross procedure versus conventional aortic valve replacement in young adults. Open Heart. 2019;6(1). doi:10.1136/openhrt-2019-001047
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sharabiani MTA, Dorobantu DM, Mahani AS, et al. Aortic valve replacement and the Ross operation in children and young adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(24):2858–2870. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.04.021
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zakkar M, Bruno VD, Visan AC. Surgery for young adults with aortic valve disease not amenable to repair. Front Surg. 5:18.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mazine A, El-Hamamsy I, Verma S, et al. Ross procedure in adults for cardiologists and cardiac Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(22):2761–2777. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2200
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skillington PD, Mokhles MM, Takkenberg JJM, et al. The Ross procedure using autologous support of the pulmonary autograft: Techniques and late results. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2015;149(2):S46–S52. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.08.068
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, Nakajima M, Tatsuno K. A new method for prosthetic valve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of the aortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70(5):909–917. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(19)39673-4
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kenny LA, Austin C, Golesworthy T, Venugopal P, Alphonso N. Personalized external aortic root support (PEARS) for aortic root aneurysm. Operative Techniques in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2021;26(2):290–305. doi:10.1053/J.OPTECHSTCVS.2021.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grubb KJ. Aortic root enlargement during aortic valve replacement: Nicks and Manouguian techniques. Operative Techniques in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2015;20(3):206–218. doi:10.1053/J.OPTECHSTCVS.2016.02.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch - does it matter? A review for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons

Abstract

Paradigm

My account