Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology 6/2019

01-06-2019 | Original Paper

Incidence and impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Authors: Hatim Seoudy, Nathalie Güßefeld, Johanne Frank, Sandra Freitag-Wolf, Georg Lutter, Matthias Eden, Ashraf Yusuf Rangrez, Christian Kuhn, Norbert Frey, Derk Frank

Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology | Issue 6/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

The implications of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) in the context of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are still controversial. The objective of our study was thus to investigate the incidence and prognostic impact of PPM after TAVI.

Methods

Our analysis included 613 TAVI patients in whom the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) after TAVI was obtained in vivo using echocardiography. Prosthesis sizing was guided by pre-procedural ECG-gated computed tomography. Based on VARC-2 established criteria for significant PPM (iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2 in the setting of BMI < 30 kg/m2 and iEOA ≤ 0.7 cm2/m2 in the context of BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), patients were attributed to a “No PPM” or a “PPM” group.

Results

We observed PPM after TAVI in 192 patients (31.3%) with moderate PPM being present in 150 subjects (24.5%) and severe PPM in 42 patients (6.9%). EuroSCORE, impaired LV function, and male gender were associated with PPM status. The “No PPM” group was characterized by higher rates of self-expandable valves (40.4% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis age > 81.2 years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, impaired LV function, acute kidney failure stage 3 as well as periprocedural myocardial infarction emerged as independent risk predictors for all-cause mortality after TAVI. After a median follow-up of 12.2 months PPM failed to show a significant association with overall survival (79.2% vs. 79.3%, p = 0.692).

Conclusions

The incidence of PPM after TAVI seems to be substantially lower than after SAVR. PPM was less common using self-expandable valves. In our analysis, patients with PPM following TAVI did not have higher rates of all-cause mortality.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN et al (2006) Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 368(9540):1005–1011CrossRefPubMed Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN et al (2006) Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 368(9540):1005–1011CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Otto CM (2008) Calcific aortic stenosis–time to look more closely at the valve. N Engl J Med 359(13):1395–1398CrossRefPubMed Otto CM (2008) Calcific aortic stenosis–time to look more closely at the valve. N Engl J Med 359(13):1395–1398CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al (2003) A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro heart survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 24(13):1231–1243CrossRefPubMed Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al (2003) A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro heart survey on valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 24(13):1231–1243CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ et al (2016) Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 374(17):1609–1620CrossRefPubMed Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ et al (2016) Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 374(17):1609–1620CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 38(36):2739–2791CrossRef Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ et al (2017) 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 38(36):2739–2791CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Kim WK et al (2017) Trends in aortic valve replacement in Germany in 2015: transcatheter versus isolated surgical aortic valve repair. Clin Res Cardiol 106(6):411–419CrossRefPubMed Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Kim WK et al (2017) Trends in aortic valve replacement in Germany in 2015: transcatheter versus isolated surgical aortic valve repair. Clin Res Cardiol 106(6):411–419CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Arora S, Vavalle JP (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low risk patients-clinical evidence. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(5):493–497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Arora S, Vavalle JP (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low risk patients-clinical evidence. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(5):493–497CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Frerker C, Bestehorn K, Schlüter M et al (2017) In-hospital mortality in propensity-score matched low-risk patients undergoing routine isolated surgical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 2014 in Germany. Clin Res Cardiol 106(8):610–617CrossRefPubMed Frerker C, Bestehorn K, Schlüter M et al (2017) In-hospital mortality in propensity-score matched low-risk patients undergoing routine isolated surgical or transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 2014 in Germany. Clin Res Cardiol 106(8):610–617CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P et al (2013) Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the valve academic research consortium-2 consensus document. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 145(1):6–23CrossRefPubMed Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P et al (2013) Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the valve academic research consortium-2 consensus document. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 145(1):6–23CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
go back to reference Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL et al (2012) 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 33(12):1518–1529CrossRefPubMed Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL et al (2012) 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 33(12):1518–1529CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2006) Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 92(8):1022–1029CrossRefPubMed Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2006) Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 92(8):1022–1029CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T et al (2018) Trends in practice and outcomes from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German aortic valve registry on 42 776 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 53(3):552–559CrossRefPubMed Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T et al (2018) Trends in practice and outcomes from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German aortic valve registry on 42 776 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 53(3):552–559CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Takagi H, Umemoto T (2016) Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 101(3):872–880CrossRefPubMed Takagi H, Umemoto T (2016) Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 101(3):872–880CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Manoharan G, Walton AS, Brecker SJ et al (2015) Treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with a novel resheathable supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8(10):1359–1367CrossRefPubMed Manoharan G, Walton AS, Brecker SJ et al (2015) Treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with a novel resheathable supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8(10):1359–1367CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kuhn C, Frerker C, Meyer AK et al (2018) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 34 mm self-expanding CoreValve Evolut R: initial experience in 101 patients from a multicentre registry. EuroIntervention 14(3):e301–e305CrossRefPubMed Kuhn C, Frerker C, Meyer AK et al (2018) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 34 mm self-expanding CoreValve Evolut R: initial experience in 101 patients from a multicentre registry. EuroIntervention 14(3):e301–e305CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM et al (2018) The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 106(1):14–22CrossRefPubMed Fallon JM, DeSimone JP, Brennan JM et al (2018) The incidence and consequence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 106(1):14–22CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Saybolt MD, Fiorilli PN, Gertz ZM et al (2017) Low-flow severe aortic stenosis: evolving role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 10(8):e004838CrossRefPubMed Saybolt MD, Fiorilli PN, Gertz ZM et al (2017) Low-flow severe aortic stenosis: evolving role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 10(8):e004838CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Schymik G, Tzamalis P, Herzberger V et al (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a single-centre experience in 2000 patients (TAVIK registry). Clin Res Cardiol 106(12):1018–1025CrossRefPubMed Schymik G, Tzamalis P, Herzberger V et al (2017) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a single-centre experience in 2000 patients (TAVIK registry). Clin Res Cardiol 106(12):1018–1025CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Rogers T, Steinvil A, Gai J et al (2017) Choice of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve impacts hemodynamics differently according to aortic annular size. Am J Cardiol 119(6):900–904CrossRefPubMed Rogers T, Steinvil A, Gai J et al (2017) Choice of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve impacts hemodynamics differently according to aortic annular size. Am J Cardiol 119(6):900–904CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kim WK, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2017) Comparison of outcomes using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter prostheses according to the extent of aortic valve calcification. Clin Res Cardiol 106(12):995–1004CrossRefPubMed Kim WK, Blumenstein J, Liebetrau C et al (2017) Comparison of outcomes using balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter prostheses according to the extent of aortic valve calcification. Clin Res Cardiol 106(12):995–1004CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J et al (2000) Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 102(19 Suppl 3):III5–III9PubMed Rao V, Jamieson WR, Ivanov J et al (2000) Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects survival after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 102(19 Suppl 3):III5–III9PubMed
24.
go back to reference Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R et al (2003) Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 108(8):983–988CrossRefPubMed Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R et al (2003) Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 108(8):983–988CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P et al (1999) Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 11(4):114–120PubMed Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P et al (1999) Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 11(4):114–120PubMed
26.
go back to reference Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2000) Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(4):1131–1141CrossRefPubMed Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2000) Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(4):1131–1141CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M et al (1998) Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis 7(2):211–218PubMed Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M et al (1998) Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis 7(2):211–218PubMed
28.
go back to reference Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ et al (2014) 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 64(13):1323–1334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ et al (2014) 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 64(13):1323–1334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Lv W, Li S, Liao Y et al (2017) The ‘obesity paradox’ does exist in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 25(4):633–642CrossRefPubMed Lv W, Li S, Liao Y et al (2017) The ‘obesity paradox’ does exist in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 25(4):633–642CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Arsalan M, Filardo G, Kim WK et al (2016) Prognostic value of body mass index and body surface area on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol 105(12):1042–1048CrossRefPubMed Arsalan M, Filardo G, Kim WK et al (2016) Prognostic value of body mass index and body surface area on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol 105(12):1042–1048CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Incidence and impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Authors
Hatim Seoudy
Nathalie Güßefeld
Johanne Frank
Sandra Freitag-Wolf
Georg Lutter
Matthias Eden
Ashraf Yusuf Rangrez
Christian Kuhn
Norbert Frey
Derk Frank
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Research in Cardiology / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 1861-0684
Electronic ISSN: 1861-0692
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1394-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Clinical Research in Cardiology 6/2019 Go to the issue