Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Management of acute coronary syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Pericardial heart valves wikipedia , lookup
Aortic stenosis wikipedia , lookup
Jatene procedure wikipedia , lookup
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy wikipedia , lookup
Lutembacher's syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Antihypertensive drug wikipedia , lookup
Journal of the American College of Cardiology © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Published by Elsevier Inc. Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 ISSN 0735-1097/05/$30.00 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.073 Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Pulmonary Arterial Pressure After Mitral Valve Replacement Mingzhou Li, MD, PHD, Jean G. Dumesnil, MD, FACC, Patrick Mathieu, MD, Philippe Pibarot, DVM, PHD, FACC Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada We sought to determine the impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure after mitral valve replacement (MVR). BACKGROUND Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a serious complication of mitral valve disease, and it is a major risk factor for poor outcome after MVR. We hypothesized that valve PPM might be a determinant of PA hypertension after MVR. METHODS Systolic PA pressure was measured by Doppler echocardiography in 56 patients with normally functioning mitral prosthetic valves. Mitral valve effective orifice area (EOA) was determined by the continuity equation and indexed for body surface area. RESULTS Thirty patients (54%) had PA hypertension defined as systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg, whereas 40 patients (71%) had PPM defined as an indexed EOA ⱕ1.2 cm2/m2. There was a significant correlation (r ⫽ 0.64) between systolic PA pressure and indexed EOA. The average systolic PA pressure and prevalence of PA hypertension were 34 ⫾ 8 mm Hg and 19% in patients with no PPM versus 46 ⫾ 8 mm Hg and 68% in patients with PPM (p ⬍ 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the indexed EOA was by far the strongest predictor of systolic PA pressure. CONCLUSIONS Persistent PA hypertension is frequent after MVR and strongly associated with the presence of PPM. The clinical implications of these findings are important given that PPM can largely be avoided by using a simple prospective strategy at the time of operation. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1034 – 40) © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation OBJECTIVES Pulmonary arterial (PA) hypertension is a frequent and serious complication of mitral valve diseases, and it is a major risk factor for poor outcome after surgery for mitral stenosis (1) or mitral regurgitation (2– 4). Not surprisingly, the impact of PA hypertension on morbidity and mortality See page 1041 is highly dependent on its degree of severity. Severe PA hypertension is associated with a high risk of perioperative mortality (10% to 15%) in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) as well as with increased mortality in the long term (1–3). Nonetheless, mild PA hypertension is not necessarily benign because it is associated with significantly worse exercise capacity and higher morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the normalization of PA pressure is a crucial goal of MVR. Unfortunately, the regression of PA hypertension after operation varies extensively from one patient to the other and is often incomplete (5,6). The effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic valves used for MVR is often too small in relation to body size, thus causing a mismatch between valve EOA and transvalvular flow (7–10). As a consequence, normally functioning mitral prostheses often have relatively high gradients that are similar to those found in patients with mild/moderate mitral stenosis (6,9 –11). Residual pressure gradients across mitral prostheses may hinder or delay the regression of left atrial and PA hypertension (7–9). We, therefore, hypothesized that valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) might be an important determinant of the persistence of PA hypertension after MVR. The main objective of this study was, thus, to determine the impact of PPM on PA pressure after MVR. METHODS From the Research Group in Valvular Heart Diseases, Research Center of Laval Hospital/Quebec Heart Institute, Laval University, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 67123), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr Pibarot is the Director of the Canada Research Chair in Valvular Heart Diseases, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Medtronic Inc., St-Jude Medical Inc., and Edwards Life Science Inc. have provided financial support to the Departments of Cardiac Surgery and Cardiology of the Quebec Heart Institute/Laval Hospital for the clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of patients receiving Medtronic Intact, Medtronic Mosaic, St. Jude bileaflet mechanical, and Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves. Drs. Pibarot and Dumesnil also received consultant and speaker fees from St. Jude Medical and Medtronic Inc. Manuscript received April 1, 2004; revised manuscript received July 16, 2004, accepted October 14, 2004. Patient population. We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with a mitral prosthesis who were consecutively evaluated by Doppler echocardiography at the Quebec Heart Institute between January 2003 and August 2003. Exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) evidence of overt prosthetic valve dysfunction; 2) presence of ⬎2⫹ aortic valve regurgitation and/or ⬎ mild aortic stenosis. Seventytwo patients met these eligibility criteria. Measurement of systolic PA pressure and/or mitral valve EOA could not be obtained in 14 of these patients. The study group was, Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 Abbreviations and Acronyms EOA ⫽ effective orifice area MVR ⫽ mitral valve replacement PA ⫽ pulmonary arterial PPM ⫽ prosthesis-patient mismatch therefore, composed of 56 patients with a mean age of 65 ⫾ 12 years and a median follow-up time of 43 months (range 8 to 102 months). Doppler-echocardiography. The systolic PA pressure was calculated by adding the systolic right ventricular pressure derived from the tricuspid regurgitation to the estimated right atrial pressure (12–14). Right atrial pressure was estimated from the diameter and the degree of collapse of the inferior vena cava during inspiration (14 –16). Pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined as a systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg (17). Mitral valve EOA was determined by the continuity equation using the stroke volume measured in the left ventricular outflow tract divided by the integral of the mitral valve transprosthetic velocity during diastole; PPM was defined as an indexed EOA ⱕ1.2 cm2/m2 as suggested in previous studies (9,10), and, on this basis, the patients were arbitrarily divided into two subgroups (i.e., those with no PPM and those with PPM). Because atrioventricular compliance has been shown to influence PA pressure in patients with mitral stenosis (18,19), we also elected to calculate this parameter, such as suggested by Flaschkampf et al. (18,19). Indeed, these authors have presented analytical and numerical evidence showing that net atrioventricular compliance (Cn), which is the change in volume shift between left atrium and left ventricle during diastole divided by the change in transmitral pressure gradient, can be determined noninvasively by Doppler-echocardiography using the following equation: Cn ⫽ 1,270 共EOA/E-wave downslope兲 [1] whereby EOA is the mitral valve EOA determined by the continuity equation in cm2, E-wave downslope is the mitral velocity E-wave downslope measured in cm/s2, and the result is expressed in ml/mm Hg. Schwammenthal et al. (19) found that Cn as determined by this equation correlated well (r ⫽ 0.79) with invasively determined values of the same parameter in patients with mitral stenosis. It should be emphasized that Cn is theoretically affected by both atrial and ventricular chamber compliances but that these two variables cannot be measured individually by noninvasive methods. Nonetheless, the left atrium and left ventricle can be seen as behaving like two capacitors in series, whereby their compliances combine to yield net atrioventricular compliance as follows: Cn ⫽ 共1/Ca ⫹ 1/Cv兲⫺1 [2] Statistical analysis. Differences between groups for preoperative, operative, and postoperative variables were tested for 1035 statistical significance by t test, chi-square test, or Fischer exact test as appropriate. The Fischer exact test was used instead of the chi-square test when over 20% of the expected values in the contingency table were ⬍5. Statistical analysis of the association of variables was performed with the Pearson correlation coefficient. A forward stepwise regression analysis was used to identify the independent determinants of systolic PA pressure. Age and gender were forced into the multivariate model, whereas other variables were entered in the model when the p value was ⬍0.1 in univariate analysis. RESULTS The patients demographic, preoperative, and operative data are presented in Table 1. For the whole group, the predominant mitral valve lesion at the time of operation was mitral regurgitation in 43% of patients, mitral stenosis in 41%, and mixed mitral valve disease in 16%, whereas evidence of PA hypertension defined as a preoperative systolic PA pressure measured by Dopplerechocardiography and/or catheter ⬎40 mm Hg was present in 67% of patients. A mechanical prosthesis was inserted in 84% of patients, whereas 16% received a bioprosthesis. The model of prosthetic valve was Standard St. Jude Medical (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in 34 (61%) patients; On-X (MCRI, Austin, Texas) in 5 (9%); Advantage (Medtronic) in 4 (7%); Medtronic-Hall (Medtronic) in 4 (7%); Mosaic (Medtronic) in 4 (7%); Hancock (Medtronic) in 2 (3.5%); Intact (Medtronic,) in 2 (3.5%); and homograft (Cryolife, Kennesaw, Georgia) in 1 (2%). The mitral valve leaflets and chordae were totally or partially (posterior) preserved in 41% of patients. Concomitant procedures included left atrial appendage obliteration in 23%, Maze procedure in 9%, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in 16%. The proportion of small (ⱕ27 mm) valves was 52%, which is comparable with that reported in previous recent series (20 –24). There was no significant difference between patients having total, partial, or no preservation of the valve leaflets and chordae with regard to prosthesis size. Based on an indexed EOA ⱕ1.2 cm2/m2, 40 of the 56 patients (71%) were classified as having PPM. In comparison to patients with no PPM, patients with PPM had a significantly larger body surface area, a higher prevalence of systemic hypertension, and a higher proportion of smaller prostheses; indeed, prosthesis size was ⱕ27 mm in 66% of patients with PPM as compared to only 19% of patients without PPM. The other preoperative and operative data were similar in both groups. The postoperative Doppler-echocardiographic data are presented in Table 2. The mean systolic PA pressure for the whole group after operation was 42 ⫾ 10 mm Hg (range 22 to 61 mm Hg), whereas evidence of PA hypertension defined as a systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg was found in 30 of the 56 patients (54%). 1036 Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 Table 1. Demographic, Preoperative, and Operative Data Variables Demographic data Gender Female Male Age (yrs) Body surface area (m2) Preoperative data Predominant valvular dysfunction Mitral stenosis Mitral regurgitation Mixed mitral valve dysfunction Coronary artery disease Diabetes Systemic arterial hypertension Pulmonary arterial hypertension Operative data Type of prosthesis Mechanical prosthesis Bioprosthesis Prosthesis size (mm) 25 27 29 31 33 Total chordal preservation Posterior chordal preservation Left atrial appendage obliteration Maze procedure Coronary artery bypass graft All Patients (n ⴝ 56) No PPM (n ⴝ 16) PPM (n ⴝ 40) 36 (64%) 20 (36%) 65 ⫾ 12 1.72 ⫾ 0.17 10 (63%) 6 (38%) 63 ⫾ 14 1.64 ⫾ 0.18 26 (65%) 14 (35%) 66 ⫾ 11 1.75 ⫾ 0.16 23 (41%) 24 (43%) 9 (16%) 12 (21%) 4 (7%) 17 (30%) 32/48 (67%) 8 (47%) 5 (33%) 3 (20%) 2 (13%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 11/16 (69%) 15 (36%) 19 (48%) 6 (15%) 10 (25%) 3 (8%) 16 (40%) 21/32 (66%) 47 (84%) 9 (16%) 14 (88%) 2 (13%) 7 (13%) 22 (39%) 15 (27%) 10 (18%) 2 (4%) 5 (9%) 18 (32%) 13 (23%) 5 (9%) 11 (20%) 2 (13%) 1 (6%) 7 (44%) 5 (31%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%) 3 (19%) 4 (25%) 2 (13%) 1 (6%) 33 (83%) 7 (18%) * 5 (13%) 21 (53%) 8 (20%) 5 (13%) 1 (2%) 3 (8%) 13 (33%) 9 (23%) 3 (8%) 10 (24%) p Value* NS NS 0.03 NS† NS† NS† 0.02† NS NS† 0.001† NS NS NS† NS† NS† *p value for the difference between PPM and no PPM groups; †indicates when a Fischer exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. The prosthesis sizes have been regrouped into two categories (25 to 27 mm category vs. 29 to 33 mm category) to permit application of Fischer exact test. PPM ⫽ prosthesis-patient mismatch. Impact of PPM on PA pressure. As expected, mitral valve EOA and indexed mitral valve EOA were significantly lower in patients with PPM as compared to patients with no PPM. The former patients also had significantly higher peak and mean transvalvular pressure gradients, PA pressure, and prevalence of PA hypertension, whereas their net atrioventricular compliance was significantly lower (Table 2). The indexed EOA (i.e., the degree of PPM) correlated well with postoperative PA pressures (r ⫽ 0.64; Fig. 1) and to a lesser extent with peak (r ⫽ 0.50) and mean (r ⫽ 0.46) gradients, and atrioventricular compliance (r ⫽ 0.37). Hence, the average systolic PA pressure was significantly higher (p ⬍ 0.001) in patients with PPM (46 ⫾ 8 mm Hg) compared to patients with no PPM (34 ⫾ 8 mm Hg) (Table Table 2. Postoperative Doppler Echocardiographic Data Variables All Patients (n ⴝ 56) No PPM (n ⴝ 16) PPM (n ⴝ 40) p Value Atrial fibrillation End-diastolic LV diameter (mm) End-systolic LV diameter (mm) End-diastolic interventricular septal thickness (mm) End-diastolic LV posterior wall thickness (mm) End-systolic LA diameter (mm) Mitral valve EOA (cm2) Indexed mitral valve EOA (cm2/m2) Peak transmitral gradient (mm Hg) Mean transmitral gradient (mm Hg) Net atrioventricular compliance (ml/mm Hg) Systolic PA pressure (mm Hg) PA hypertension (systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg) 22 (39%) 49 ⫾ 7 34 ⫾ 9 10 ⫾ 2 10 ⫾ 2 51 ⫾ 11 1.8 ⫾ 0.4 1.1 ⫾ 0.3 11 ⫾ 4 4⫾2 4.1 ⫾ 1.7 42 ⫾ 10 30 (54%) 7 (44%) 50 ⫾ 7 34 ⫾ 9 10 ⫾ 1 10 ⫾ 3 52 ⫾ 14 2.3 ⫾ 0.3 1.4 ⫾ 0.1 8⫾2 3⫾1 5.3 ⫾ 1.6 34 ⫾ 8 3 (19%) 15 (38%) 49 ⫾ 7 33 ⫾ 8 10 ⫾ 2 11 ⫾ 2 50 ⫾ 10 1.7 ⫾ 0.3 1.0 ⫾ 0.2 12 ⫾ 4 4⫾2 3.6 ⫾ 1.6 46 ⫾ 8 27 (68%) NS NS NS NS NS NS ⬍0.001 ⬍0.001 ⬍0.001 0.001 0.001 ⬍0.001 0.001† Symbols as in Table 1. EOA ⫽ effective orifice area; LA ⫽ left atrial; LV ⫽ left ventricular; PA ⫽ pulmonary arterial; PPM ⫽ prosthesis-patient mismatch. JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 Figure 1. Correlation between systolic pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure and indexed mitral valve effective orifice area. An indexed mitral valve effective orifice area ⱕ1.2 cm2/m2 afforded the best sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of PA hypertension defined as a systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg (thin lines). 2). Likewise, the prevalence of persistent PA hypertension after MVR was 68% in patients with PPM versus 19% in patients with no PPM (Fig. 2). An indexed mitral valve EOA ⱕ1.2 cm2/m2 had a sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 81% to predict PA hypertension. Impact of atrioventricular compliance on PA pressure. Systolic PA pressure also correlated (r ⫽ 0.53) with net atrioventricular compliance (Fig. 3). On average, patients with an atrioventricular compliance ⱕ4 ml/mm Hg had a significantly higher (p ⬍ 0.001) postoperative systolic PA pressure (46 ⫾ 8 mm Hg) compared to those with compliance ⬎4.0 ml/mm Hg (36 ⫾ 8 mm Hg). Independent determinants of PA pressure. In multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of systolic PA pressure were: indexed mitral valve EOA (p ⬍ 0.001), net atrioventricular compliance (p ⬍ 0.001), and mean transvalvular flow rate (p ⫽ 0.04) (Table 3). Indexed EOA had the most important contribution in the multivariate model Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch 1037 Figure 3. Correlation between systolic pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure and net atrioventricular compliance. followed by atrioventricular compliance. Mean transvalvular flow rate had a minimal contribution with borderline significance. There was a weak (r ⫽ 0.35, p ⫽ 0.007) correlation between time to follow-up and postoperative PA pressure in univariate analysis, but this variable was not a significant independent predictor of PA pressure in multivariate analysis. In the subgroup of 48 patients in whom the preoperative PA pressure was available, this variable did not come out as a significant predictor of postoperative PA pressure in multivariate analysis, and the only significant predictors were the indexed MVA (⌬R2 ⫽ 0.39, p ⫽ 0.003) and the net atrioventricular compliance (⌬R2 ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽ 0.01). In Figure 4, the patients were separated into four subgroups depending on the presence of PPM and of low atriocompliance defined as being ⱕ4.0 ml/mm Hg. The systolic PA pressure and prevalence of PA hypertension were 33 ⫾ 9 mm Hg and 23% in patients (n ⫽ 13) with no PPM and normal compliance, 34 ⫾ 2 mm Hg and 0% in patients (n ⫽ 3) with no PPM and low compliance, 40 ⫾ 5 mm Hg and 36% in patients (n ⫽ 11) with PPM and normal compliance, and 48 ⫾ 7 mm Hg and 79% in patients (n ⫽ 29) with PPM and low compliance. Table 3. Independent Determinants of Postoperative Systolic Pulmonary Arterial Pressure Figure 2. Prevalence of pulmonary arterial (PA) hypertension before and after mitral valve replacement in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) versus those with no PPM. Open bars ⫽ preoperative; solid bars ⫽ postoperative. Variables Standardized Coefficient ⌬R2 p Value Age Gender Indexed mitral valve EOA Net atrioventricular compliance Mean transvalvular flow rate 0.14 0.85 ⫺0.52 ⫺0.39 0.23 — — 0.41 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.68 ⬍0.001 ⬍0.001 0.049 The ⌬R2 value represents the respective contribution of the variable to the variance of the systolic pulmonary arterial pressure in the multivariate model. EOA ⫽ effective orifice area. 1038 Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Figure 4. Systolic pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure according to valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and net atrioventricular compliance (Cn). Low Cn is defined as Cn ⱕ4.0 ml/mm Hg. DISCUSSION An increase in PA pressure can result from elevation of pulmonary blood flow, pulmonary venous pressure, and/or vascular resistance (25–27). The major consequence of PA hypertension is right ventricular failure, which generally results from chronic pressure overload and associated volume overload with the development of tricuspid regurgitation (26); PA hypertension is an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseases (28 –33). The clinical course of patients with PA hypertension can be highly variable depending on the underlying disease. However, with the onset of right ventricular failure, patient survival is generally limited to approximately six months (26); PA hypertension is frequently (30% to 70%) observed in patients with mitral valve disease (2– 6,34). The passive elevation of PA pressure due to elevated left atrial pressure is the main mechanism leading to PA hypertension in these patients. In addition to this passive elevation of PA pressure, there is often a reactive vasoconstriction of the pulmonary arterioles that causes an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance and, thus, contributes to the elevation of PA pressure. Moreover, in patients with longstanding disease, potentially irreversible structural changes may occur in the pulmonary vasculature. Given that PA hypertension is quite prevalent in patients with severe mitral valve disease and that it is associated with poor functional capacity and dismal prognosis (1–3,35), normalization of PA pressure, therefore, constitutes a crucial goal of MVR. Successful surgical relief of the mechanical cause of pulmonary venous hypertension generally reduces PA pressure and promotes regression of the reversible components of pulmonary vascular changes (25,26). Unfortunately, the relief of the passive elevation of left atrial pressure and, thus, of PA pressure is often incomplete, (5,6) likely due to the interaction of prosthesis- and/or patientrelated factors. Zielinski et al. (5) reported PA pressure data obtained by catheterization before and one year after MVR. In 14 patients with PA hypertension (defined as systolic PA pressure ⬎40 mm Hg) before operation, PA hypertension was still present in seven patients (50%) one year after JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 operation. Furthermore, among the eight patients who had normal PA pressure before MVR, three (38%) developed PA hypertension after MVR. In addition, all patients except two had PA pressure ⬎50 mm Hg when they were submitted to mild exercise (25 W workload). Of the 56 patients included in the present study, 30 (54%) still had PA hypertension after MVR. Impact of PPM on PA pressure. Previous studies have demonstrated that PPM is associated with inferior hemodynamics, less regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, more cardiac events, and higher mortality rates after aortic valve replacement (7,10,36 – 44). However, the hemodynamic and clinical impact of PPM after MVR is relatively unexplored (8 –10). In the first published report of mitral PPM, Rahimtoola and Murphy (8) described the case of a patient who remained symptomatic and had persistent PA hypertension and progressive right-sided failure after MVR. Accordingly, the major finding of the present study is that PPM is a strong risk factor for the persistence of PA hypertension after MVR. Hence, the prevalence of PA hypertension decreased from 69% to 19% after operation in patients with no PPM, whereas it remained unchanged in patients with PPM (66% before operation vs. 68% after operation) (Fig. 2). In patients with an aortic prosthesis, previous studies also consistently found a strong correlation between the indexed EOA and the postoperative transprosthetic gradients measured at rest or during exercise (36,40,45). However, as reported in the present study as well as in the previous study by Dumesnil et al. (9), the correlation between the indexed EOA and the mean transprosthetic pressure gradients is lower in patients with mitral prostheses (r ⬍ 0.50) than in patients with aortic prostheses (r ⬎ 0.75). In this context, it should be emphasized that the hemodynamics of the mitral valve are much more sensitive to the chronotropic conditions than that of the aortic valve. Indeed, for similar indexed EOA, the pressure gradients across the mitral valve are highly influenced by the transvalvular flow rate, which is essentially determined by two factors: the diastolic filling volume and the diastolic filling time. In turn, diastolic time is highly dependent on heart rate. A change in heart rate has a much greater impact on the diastolic duration than on the systolic duration. This difference may contribute to the explanation of the lower correlation between indexed EOA and pressure gradients that is observed in mitral prostheses. In this context, it is also interesting to note that the indexed mitral EOA correlated better with systolic PA pressure than with transprosthetic pressure gradients; this finding is consistent with the fact that PA pressure is probably less influenced by chronotropic conditions than are pressure gradients. Atrioventricular compliance, a physiological modulator of PA pressure. Patients with chronic mitral valve disease often have an abnormally low atrial compliance due to left atrial remodeling and hypertrophy. In turn, a reduction in atrial compliance will necessarily result in a decrease in net JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 atrioventricular compliance because, according to equation 2, the latter is always lower than either of its two components (i.e., left ventricular and left atrial compliances). In patients with native mitral valve stenosis, Schwammenthal et al. (19) demonstrated that atrioventricular compliance is an important physiological modulator of left atrial and PA pressures. In the context of MVR, it, however, becomes evident that compliance is also influenced by PPM. This observation appears to be confirmed by the results of univariate and multivariate analysis (Table 3), whereby, in univariate analysis, PPM (i.e., indexed EOA) accounts for 41% of the variance of PA pressure compared to 28% for compliance, whereas, in multivariate analysis, the independent contribution of PPM remains at 41%, but that of compliance decreases to 10%, suggesting that compliance is indeed influenced by PPM. Also consistent with this observation is the fact that reduced atrioventricular compliance had a minimal effect on PA pressure in the absence of PPM, whereas the combination of PPM and low atrioventricular compliance was associated with a dramatic increase in the prevalence of PA hypertension (Fig. 4). Hence, it would appear that a decrease in atrial compliance may be relatively well tolerated in patients with a prosthetic valve with a large EOA and no PPM but that the same condition may be much less well tolerated in patients with a relative obstruction to flow due to the prosthesis. Clinical implication. The clinical implications of these results are important given that PPM is frequent in patients undergoing MVR. Moreover, as opposed to most other risk factors for PA hypertension, PPM may eventually be avoided by using a prospective strategy at the time of operation. Such a strategy has been well described and validated for the prevention of PPM in the aortic position (40,43,46,47). Suggested options to avoid PPM in the aortic position are either to perform an aortic root enlargement to accommodate a larger prosthesis or to use another type of prosthesis with a better hemodynamic profile (i.e., with a larger EOA; e.g., a stentless bioprosthesis or a mechanical valve). In the mitral position, there is no alternative technique allowing implantation of a larger prosthesis size. The preventive strategy should, therefore, be focused on the implantation of the prosthesis having the largest EOA for a given size. The objective would be to obtain a postoperative indexed EOA ⬎1.2 to 1.3 cm2/m2. To this effect, the bileaflet mechanical valves of new generation may be an interesting option given that their hemodynamics are generally superior to that of other prostheses (48). Study limitations. The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design. This may have introduced some selection bias. Also, the preoperative values of systolic PA pressure could not be obtained in several patients. Further prospective studies are, thus, necessary to determine the impact of PPM on the regression or progression of PA hypertension. Beyond PPM and atrioventricular compliance, other Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch 1039 factors, such as pulmonary vascular resistance or PA compliance, may also influence the normalization of PA pressure after MVR. However, these factors are difficult to estimate by Doppler-echocardiography, and they were indeed not measured in this study. Nonetheless, it should also be considered that, as opposed to PPM, these factors are hardly preventable or modifiable. Hence, although this information could be used to evaluate postoperative outcome, it could not contribute to the development of a prospective strategy that would optimize the regression of PA hypertension after MVR. Conclusions. Persistent PA hypertension is frequent after MVR and strongly associated with the presence of valve PPM. The clinical implications of these findings are important given that PPM may be avoided by using a simple prospective strategy at the time of operation. Acknowledgments The authors thank Isabelle Laforest, Dominique Labrèche, Julie Martin, Brigitte Dionne, and Julien Magne for their technical assistance in the realization of the study. Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Philippe Pibarot, Laval Hospital, 2725 Chemin Sainte-Foy, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada, G1V 4G5. E-mail: [email protected]. REFERENCES 1. Vincens JJ, Temizer D, Post JR, Edmunds LH, Jr., Herrmann HC. Long-term outcome of cardiac surgery in patients with mitral stenosis and severe pulmonary hypertension. Circulation 1995;92:II137– 42. 2. Salomon NW, Stinson EB, Griepp RB, Shumway NE. Mitral valve replacement: long-term evaluation of prosthesis-related mortality and morbidity. Circulation 1977;56:II94 –101. 3. Crawford MH, Souchek J, Oprian CA, et al. Determinants of survival and left ventricular performance after mitral valve replacement. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. Circulation 1990;81:1173– 81. 4. Otto CM. Surgical intervention for mitral regurgitation. In: Otto CM, editor. Valvular Heart Disease. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 1999:340 – 61. 5. Zielinski T, Pogorzelska H, Rajecka A, Biedermavn A, Sliwinski M, Korewicki J. Pulmonary hemodynamics at rest and effort, 6 and 12 months after mitral valve replacement: a slow regression of effort pulmonary hypertension. Int J Cardiol 1993;42:57– 62. 6. Leavitt JI, Coats MH, Falk RH. Effects of exercise on transmitral gradient and pulmonary artery pressure in patients with mitral stenosis or a prosthetic mitral valve: a Doppler echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:1520 – 6. 7. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58:20 – 4. 8. Rahimtoola SH, Murphy E. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch: a long-term sequela. Br Heart J 1981;45:331–5. 9. Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Validation and applications of mitral prosthetic valvular areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 1990;65:1443– 8. 10. Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1992;6:S34 – 8. 11. Reisner SA, Lichtenberg GS, Shapiro JR, Schwarz KQ, Meltzer RS. Exercise Doppler echocardiography in patients with mitral prosthetic valves. Am Heart J 1989;118:755–9. 12. Yock PG, Popp RL. Noninvasive estimation of right ventricular systolic pressure by Doppler ultrasound in patients with tricuspid regurgitation. Circulation 1984;70:657– 62. 1040 Li et al. Impact of Mitral Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch 13. Currie PJ, Seward JB, Chan KL, et al. Continuous wave Doppler determination of right ventricular pressure: a simultaneous Dopplercatheterization study in 127 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;6: 750 – 6. 14. Nishimura RA, Tajik AJ. Quantitative hemodynamics by Doppler echocardiography: a noninvasive alternative to cardiac catheterization. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1994;36:309 – 42. 15. Schiller NB. Pulmonary artery pressure estimation by Doppler and two-dimensional echocardiography. Cardiol Clin 1990;8:277– 87. 16. Kircher BJ, Himelman RB, Schiller NB. Noninvasive estimation of right atrial pressure from the inspiratory collapse of the inferior vena cava. Am J Cardiol 1990;66:493– 6. 17. McQuillan BM, Picard MH, Leavitt M, Weyman AE. Clinical correlates and reference intervals for pulmonary artery systolic pressure among echocardiographically normal subjects. Circulation 2001;104: 2797– 802. 18. Flachskampf FA, Weyman AE, Guerrero JL, Thomas JD. Calculation of atrioventricular compliance from the mitral flow profile: analytic and in vitro study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;19:998 –1004. 19. Schwammenthal E, Vered Z, Agranat O, Kaplinsky E, Rabinowitz B, Feinberg MS. Impact of atrioventricular compliance on pulmonary artery pressure in mitral stenosis: an exercise echocardiographic study. Circulation 2000;102:2378 – 84. 20. Camilleri LF, Bailly P, Legault BJ, Miguel B, D’Agrosa-Boiteux MC, de Riberolles CM. Mitral and mitro-aortic valve replacement with Sorin Bicarbon valves compared with St. Jude Medical valves. Cardiovasc Surg 2001;9:272– 80. 21. Fradet GJ, Bleese N, Burgess J, Cartier PC. Mosaic valve international clinical trial: early performance results. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71: S273–7. 22. Keser N, Nanda NC, Miller AP, et al. Hemodynamic evaluation of normally functioning Sulzer Carbomedics prosthetic valves. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:649 –57. 23. Ikonomidis JS, Kratz JM, Crumbley AJ, III, et al. Twenty-year experience with the St. Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:2022–31. 24. Emery RW, Van Nooten GJ, Tesar PJ. The initial experience with the ATS Medical mechanical cardiac valve prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:444 –52. 25. Palevsky HI, Fishman AP. Pulmonary hypertension. In: Locaszo J, Cresger MA, Dzau VJ, editors. Vascular Medicine. A Textbook of Vascular Biology and Diseases. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992:957–73. 26. Rich S, Braunwald E, Grossman W. Pulmonary hypertension. In: Braunwald E, editor. Heart Disease. A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. Philadelphia, London, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney, Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company, 1996:780 – 806. 27. Dawson CA. Role of pulmonary vasomotion in physiology of the lung. Physiol Rev 1984;64:544 – 616. 28. Ayres SM, Bergofsky EH, Brundage BH, et al. Survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Results from a national prospective registry. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:343–9. 29. Stevens PM, Terplan M, Knowles JH. Prognosis of cor pulmonale. N Engl J Med 1963;269:1289 –91. 30. Malouf JF, Enriquez-Sarano M, Pellikka PA, et al. Severe pulmonary hypertension in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: clinical profile and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:789 – 95. JACC Vol. 45, No. 7, 2005 April 5, 2005:1034–40 31. Aragam JR, Folland ED, Lapsley D, Sharma S, Khuri SF, Sharma GVRK. Cause and impact of pulmonary hypertension in isolated aortic stenosis on operative mortality for aortic valve replacement in men. Am J Cardiol 1992;69:1365–7. 32. Snopek G, Pogorzelska H, Zielinski T, et al. Valve replacement for aortic stenosis with severe congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. J Heart Valve Dis 1996;5:268 –72. 33. Enriquez-Sarano M, Rossi A, Seward JB, Bailey KR, Tajik J. Determinants of pulmonary hypertension in left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:153–9. 34. Tunick PA, Freedberg RS, Gargiulo A, Kronzon I. Exercise Doppler echocardiography as an aid to clinical decision making in mitral valve disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1992;5:225–30. 35. Song J-K, Kang D-H, Lee CW, et al. Factors determining the exercise capacity in mitral stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1996;78:1060 –2. 36. Dumesnil JG, Honos GN, Lemieux M, Beauchemin J. Validation and applications of indexed aortic prosthetic valve areas calculated by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:637– 43. 37. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol 1996;12: 379 – 87. 38. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Métras J, Durand LG. 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– 8. 39. Del Rizzo DF, Abdoh A, Cartier P, Doty DB, Westaby S. Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11:114 –20. 40. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1131– 41. 41. Rao V, Jamieson WRE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, David TE. Prosthesispatient mismatch affects survival following aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2000;102:III5–9. 42. Milano AD, De CM, Mecozzi G, et al. Clinical outcome in patients with 19-mm and 21-mm St. Jude aortic prostheses: comparison at long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:37– 43. 43. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003;108:983– 8. 44. Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:149 –59. 45. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Jobin J, Cartier P, Honos G, Durand LG. Hemodynamic and physical performance during maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic valve. Comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:1609 –17. 46. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Mètras J, Lemieux M. Patientprosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S265– 8. 47. Castro LJ, Arcidi JMJ, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:31– 6. 48. Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Negri A, Manfredi J. The concept of patient-prosthesis mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13:S59 – 62.