If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
described patient-prosthetic mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). We were taught that PPM is bad and must be avoided, because left ventricular mass regression is impaired, affecting survival, especially in younger patients. A new question is now before us. Should anxiety about PPM lead us to choose transcatheter AVR (TAVR) in preference to surgical AVR (SAVR)?
examined data from 59,779 patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database from 2004 to 2014 and reported in 2018 that any degree of PPM significantly decreased long-term survival and increased readmission rates for both heart failure and reoperation for AVR.
In this issue of the Journal, Maeda and colleagues
report a propensity-matched retrospective analysis of 72 patients, focusing on the sinotubular junction. As expected, TAVR (with Sapien or Sapien XT; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) provided superior hemodynamics. A small sinotubular junction (<22.5 mm) was an independent predictor of PPM after SAVR (59.7% in SAVR vs 2.9% in TAVR). A low PPM rate was unrelated to aortic root size in the TAVR group. The incidence of aortic regurgitation, however, including paravalvular leaks, was greater in TAVR than in SAVR (aortic regurgitation ≥grade II, 44.1% vs 7.1%), attributable to devices no longer in use. Maeda and colleagues
conclude that TAVR is an option to prevent PPM, especially in patients with a small aortic root. That said, the surgical group was small, and 5 different bioprostheses were used, with varied PPM incidence even among 19-mm devices. Perhaps the high rate of PPM in the SAVR group was related to the use of everting mattress sutures with pledgets in the supra-annular position, placing the valve in the annulus and resulting in smaller valve choices.
Ultimately, a prudent course is perhaps to evaluate the needs of the patient beyond a single measurement. Is the patient elderly and relatively immobile, or young and vigorous? Tailoring the operation to the needs of the patient and the operative risk should be the goal. The data of Maeda and colleagues
undoubtedly are helpful but should be viewed in this context. If, for example a younger patient has a small sinotubular junction, the surgeon should consider the longevity of SAVR versus TAVR and their associated complications. If confident, the surgeon may choose root enlargement, which usually results in upsizing the prosthesis by 1 or 2 measures. We are in an era of boutique surgery.
This study aimed to assess the predictors of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using preoperative computed tomography.