Hemodynamic Performance and Incidence of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch of the Complete Supraannular Perimount Magna Bioprosthesis in the Aortic Position

Abstract

Background: Complete supraannular placement and smaller stent design allow the implantation of a Perimount Magna bioprosthesis with a larger inner diameter than that of a standard Perimount. This study compares the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) of both prostheses. Methods: 128 patients underwent aortic valve replacement, receiving either a Magna (n = 57) or a standard (n = 71) prosthesis. Inner aortic annulus diameter was measured intraoperatively by a hegar dilator to match echocardiographically obtained results to the annulus diameter instead of matching them to labelled valve size. Results: The Magna was significantly superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and effective orifice area in patients with an annulus diameter of 22 - 23 mm. In patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm or > 23 mm, there was a non-significant trend towards superior hemodynamics in the Magna group. Severe PPM (effective orifice area index ≤ 0.65 cm²/m²) was present in 11.1 % (Magna) vs. 42.1 % (Standard) of patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm; in 0 % (Magna) vs. 13.8 % (Standard) with an annulus diameter of 22 - 23 mm; no PPM was seen in patients with annulus diameter > 23 mm in both groups. Conclusions: The Perimount Magna had a significantly reduced incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and superior hemodynamics compared to the standard Perimount.

Aortic valve replacement - bioprosthesis - hemodynamics - patient-prosthesis mismatch

References

• 1 Cosgrove D, Lytle B, Taylor P. et al . The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: Ten-year results.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;  110 651-662
• 2 Pelletier L C, Carrier M, Leclerc Y, Dyrda I. The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: clinical experience with 600 patients.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;  60 297-302
• 3 Dellgren G, David T E, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;  124 146-154
• 4 Banbury M K, Cosgrove D M, Thomas J D. et al . Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;  73 1460-1465
• 5 Eichinger W B, Botzenhardt F, Günzinger R. et al . European experience with the Mosaic bioprosthesis.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;  124 333-339
• 6 Botzenhardt F, Gansera B, Kemkes B M. Midterm hemodynamic and clinical results of the stented Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in aortic position.  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;  52 34-41
• 7 Eichinger W B, Botzenhardt F, Günzinger R. et al . The ratio of effective orifice area by patient aortic annulus area - a better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomised comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in aortic position.  J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;  13 382-389
• 8 Blais C, Dumesnil J G, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement.  Circulation. 2003;  108 983-988
• 9 Dumesnil J G, Honos G N, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Validation and application of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;  16 637-643
• 10 Dumesnil J G, Yoganathan A P. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992;  6 S34-S38
• 11 Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G, Jobin J, Lemieux M, Honos G, Durand L G. Usefulness of the indexed effective orifice area at rest in predicting an increase in gradient during maximum exercise in patients with a bioprosthesis in the aortic position.  Am J Cardiol. 1999;  83 542-546
• 12 Rahimtola S H. Perspective on valvular heart disease: an update.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;  14 1-23
• 13 Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Metras J, Durand L G. 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. 1998;  7 211-218
• 14 Yoganathan A P, Woo Y R, Sung H W, Williams F P, Franch R H, Jones M. In vitro hemodynamic characteristics of tissue bioprostheses in the aortic position.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;  92 198-209
• 15 Jin X Y, Zhang Z M, Gibson D G, Yacoub M H, Pepper J R. Effect of valve substitute on changes in left ventricular function and hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;  62 683-690
• 16 Sim E KW, Orszulak T A, Schaff H V, Shub C. Influence of prosthesis size on change in left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1994;  8 293-297
• 17 Levy D, Garrison R J, Savage D D, Kannel W B, Castelli W P. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham heart study.  N Engl J Med. 1990;  322 1561-1566
• 18 Sullivan J M, Zwaag R V, El-Zeky F, Ramanathan K B, Mirvis D M. Left ventricular hypertrophy: effect on survival.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;  22 508-513
• 19 Pibarot P, Dumesnil J G. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;  36 1131-1141