2022Unpublished venueOpen access

Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch on Outcomes

Ahmed Alnajar, Naser Hamad, Muhammad Z. Azhar, Yaseen Mousa, Yingyot Arora, Joseph Lamelas

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Background: The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). Since the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods: For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results: The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes aortic valve replacement has not been clear since multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM after SAVR vary greater than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to almost 80% in SAVR and from 24%-35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR is ranging from 2 to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14 to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions: The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in TAVR and SAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both TAVR and SAVR.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Background: The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). Since the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods: For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results: The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes aortic valve replacement has not been clear since multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM after SAVR vary greater than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to almost 80% in SAVR and from 24%-35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR is ranging from 2 to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14 to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions: The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in TAVR and SAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both TAVR and SAVR.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Background: The hemodynamics of most prosthetic valves are often inferior to that of the normal native valve, and a significant proportion of patients undergoing surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have high residual transaortic pressure gradients due to prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM). Since the experience with TAVR has increased and long-term outcomes are reported, a close look at the PPM literature is required in light of new evidence. Methods: For this review, we searched the Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2022. Articles reporting PPM as an outcome following aortic valve replacements were identified and reviewed. Results: The impact of PPM on clinical outcomes aortic valve replacement has not been clear since multiple studies failed to report PPM incidence. However, the PPM after SAVR vary greater than after TAVR, ranging from 8% to almost 80% in SAVR and from 24%-35% in TAVR. Incidence of severe PPM following redo SAVR is ranging from 2 to 9% and following valve-in-valve TAVR is from 14 to 33%, however, while PPM is higher in valve-in-valve TAVR, patients had better survival rates. Conclusions: The gap between valve performance and clinical outcomes in TAVR and SAVR could be reduced by carefully selecting patients for either treatment option. Understanding predictors of PPM can add to the safety, effectiveness, and increased survival benefit of both TAVR and SAVR.

Key concepts: Medicine, Aortic valve replacement, Valve replacement, Prosthesis, Aortic valve, Cardiology, Incidence (geometry), Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch on Outcomes — Research Paper | ScholarLens