Should We Place 23 mm or Larger Valve for Young Female Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement?
Ahmed A Kolkailah, Julius I Ejiofor, Fernando Ramirez Del Val, Ritam Chowdhury, Siobhan McGurk, Jiyae Lee, Prem S Shekar, Sary F Aranki, Marc P Pelletier, Tsuyoshi Kaneko
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
BACKGROUND: The effects of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on clinical outcomes have been well studied, and the outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacements (VIV-TAVR) in small prostheses (≤ 21 mm) are reported to be worse. Consequently, there is a consideration to place at least a 23 mm valve in young active females to avoid PPM and allow future VIV-TAVR. We assessed the clinical outcomes of young female patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using small and large prostheses to identify whether small valve size alone is a risk factor as well as the incremental risk of PPM.
METHODS: Between January 2002 and June 2015, 451 young (≤ 65 years) female patients who underwent SAVR were identified. Patients were stratified into small prostheses (SP) ≤ 21 mm (n = 257) and large prostheses (LP) ≥ 23 mm (n = 194) groups. PPM was considered to be present if indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) < 0.85 cm2/m2 and was classified into moderate if iEOA ≥ 0.65 cm2/m2 or severe if iEOA < 0.65 cm2/m2. Outcomes of interest were operative mortality and long-term survival. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate predictors of long-term survival (Figure). Median follow-up duration was 6.09 (3.12, 9.59) years.
RESULTS: The mean age was 55.2 ± 9.0 years. SP were used in 257/451 (57%) of the patients. Mean BSA was 1.80 ± 0.22 m2 in the SP group vs. 1.87 ± 0.25 m2 in the LP group (p ≤ 0.002). Both groups had similar STS-PROM, 2.30 ± 2.36% in the SP group vs. 2.40 ± 5.14% in the LP group (p = 0.85). Operative mortality was 6/257 (2.3%) in the SP group and 2/194 (1.0%) in the LP group (p = 0.48). Moderate PPM was present in 101/257 (39.3%) patients in the SP group and 30/194 (15.5%) patients in the LP group (p ≤ 0.001). Severe PPM was observed in 28/257 (10.9%) patients in the SP group and 5/194 (2.6%) patients in the LP group (p ≤ 0.001). Overall 14-year survival was 75%, 74.64% in the SP group vs. 75.74% in the LP group. Multivariate Cox analysis identified age (HR 1.06, p = 0.014), renal failure (HR 4.60, p ≤ 0.001), CHF (HR 3.27, p ≤ 0.001) and severe PPM (HR 2.87, p = 0.013) as significant predictors of long-term survival, while valve size and moderate PPM were not found significantly contributory.
CONCLUSIONS: In young females undergoing SAVR, small valve size alone was not associated with worse long-term outcomes. The presence of severe PPM resulted in poor long-term outcomes, whereas moderate PPM was not associated with decreased long-term survival. Since future valve-in-valve TAVR will not fix the PPM problem, we suggest considering aortic root enlargement procedures to allow for placement of larger prostheses, specifically in patients with potential severe PPM.
Back to 2017 Program