Cibin Giorgia, D'Onofrio Augusto, Lorenzoni Giulia, Lombardi Valentina, Bergonzoni Emma, Fabozzo Assunta, Cao Irene, Francavilla Andrea, Tessari Chiara, Gregori Dario, Gerosa Gino
Cardiac Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy.
Cardiac Surgery Unit, Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata, 00133 Roma, Italy.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Apr 17;61(4):743. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040743.
: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with worse clinical outcomes and worse valve durability. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the consistency between predicted PPM (PPMp) and measured PPM (PPMm) after SAVR with three different bioprostheses. : We analyzed data of all consecutive patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with Magna Ease, Intuity, and Inspiris Resilia bioprostheses (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) at our institution. PPM was defined if EOAi ≤ 0.85 cm/m. PPMm was determined by institutional echo lab-measured EOAi on discharge-day echocardiogram. PPMp was assessed using reference values for each valve model and size indexed to BSA based on height, weight, prosthesis type, and size. For the overall population and for the three valve types we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value, negative predicted value, and accuracy of PPMp. Furthermore, the consistency between PPMm and PPMp were evaluated according to prosthesis type, size, stent internal diameter (ID), and true ID. : A total of 1323 patients underwent SAVR; complete hemodynamic data were available for 872 patients, who represent the population of our study. Magna Ease, Intuity, and Inspiris Resilia were implanted in 446 (51.1%), 341 (39.1%), and 85 (9.7%) patients, respectively. In 635 out of 872 cases (72.8%), PPMp was consistent with PPMm (Magna Ease: 321/446, 72%; Inspiris Resilia: 58/85, 68.2%; Intuity: 256/341, 75%). Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value, negative predicted value, and accuracy of PPMp were 0.26, 0.83, 0.24, 0.84, and 0.73, respectively (Magna Ease: 0.21, 0.82, 0.3, 0.8, and 0.72; Inspiris Resilia: 0.11, 0.82, 0.14, 0.79, and 0.68; Intuity: 0.45, 0.78, 0.19, 0.93, and 0.75). : The consistency between PPMp and PPMm was suboptimal. We did not observe differences between PPMp and PPMm among different valve types. Discordance between PPMp and PPMm was more evident in smaller valve sizes. When implanting small valves, the evaluation of PPMp should be used with caution to avoid unexpected PPMm.
外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)后人工瓣膜-患者不匹配(PPM)与更差的临床结局和更差的瓣膜耐久性相关。这项回顾性单中心研究的目的是评估SAVR术后使用三种不同生物瓣膜时预测的PPM(PPMp)与测量的PPM(PPMm)之间的一致性。
我们分析了在我们机构接受使用麦格纳易思(Magna Ease)、英图艾提(Intuity)和英思派瑞斯·瑞思丽亚(Inspiris Resilia)生物瓣膜(美国加利福尼亚州尔湾市爱德华兹生命科学公司)进行外科主动脉瓣置换术的所有连续患者的数据。如果有效瓣口面积指数(EOAi)≤0.85 cm²/m²,则定义为PPM。PPMm通过出院日超声心动图上机构超声心动图实验室测量的EOAi来确定。PPMp使用基于身高、体重、人工瓣膜类型和尺寸并根据体表面积索引的每个瓣膜型号和尺寸的参考值进行评估。对于总体人群和三种瓣膜类型,我们评估了PPMp的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确性。此外,根据人工瓣膜类型、尺寸、支架内径(ID)和实际内径评估了PPMm与PPMp之间的一致性。
共有1323例患者接受了SAVR;872例患者有完整的血流动力学数据,这些患者代表了我们的研究人群。分别有446例(51.1%)、341例(39.1%)和85例(9.7%)患者植入了麦格纳易思、英图艾提和英思派瑞斯·瑞思丽亚生物瓣膜。在872例病例中的635例(72.8%)中,PPMp与PPMm一致(麦格纳易思:321/446,72%;英思派瑞斯·瑞思丽亚:58/85,68.2%;英图艾提:256/341,75%)。总体而言,PPMp的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确性分别为0.26、0.83、0.24、0.84和0.73(麦格纳易思:0.21、0.82、0.3、0.8和0.72;英思派瑞斯·瑞思丽亚:0.11、0.82、0.14、0.79和0.68;英图艾提:0.45、0.78、0.19、0.93和0.75)。
PPMp与PPMm之间的一致性欠佳。我们未观察到不同瓣膜类型之间PPMp与PPMm的差异。PPMp与PPMm之间的不一致在较小瓣膜尺寸中更为明显。植入小瓣膜时,应谨慎使用PPMp评估以避免意外的PPMm。