Mini-aortic valve replacements are not associated with an increased incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch

a propensity-scored analysis

J. Trent Magruder, Joshua C. Grimm, Arman Kilic, Todd Crawford, John Conte, Duke E. Cameron, Ashish S. Shah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to determine whether an AVR performed though a partial upper hemisternotomy (“mini-AVR”) resulted in a greater incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) than those through a full median sternotomy (“AVR”). Methods: Patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Moderate PPM was defined as an in vivo effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2 body surface area; severe PPM was defined as ≤0.65 cm2/m2. A propensity score-matched analysis was utilized to compare the incidence of PPM between these groups. Results: Of the 630 patients undergoing aortic valve surgery, 90 (14.3 %) received mini-AVRs and 540 (85.7 %) received regular AVRs. After propensity matching, we established two cohorts of 85 patients receiving each procedure. Both cohorts were similar with regard to all preoperative covariates including mean age (65.5 vs. 65.1, p = 0.85), diabetes (17.7 vs. 22.4 %), mean BMI (28.3 vs. 28.6, p = 0.73), mean EF (56.9 vs. 55.6, p = 0.43), proportion of patients with aortic stenosis (70.6 vs. 71.8 %, p = 1.00), preoperative valve area (0.88 vs. 0.93 cm2, p = 0.67), and proportion who received a bioprosthesis (85.9 vs. 83.5 %, p = 0.59). Postoperatively, 27.4 % of mini-AVRs and 26.8 % of AVRs had moderate PPM (p = 0.93); 2.4 and 1.2 % had severe PPM (p = 0.66). Kaplan–Meier analysis also failed to reveal a difference in 1-year survival between mini and regular AVRs (93.7 vs. 90.5 %, p = 0.49). Conclusions: After propensity matching, mini-AVRs are not associated with a greater incidence of PPM than regular AVRs. Severe PPM was rare across both procedure types in this surgical series.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)144-148
Number of pages5
JournalGeneral Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume64
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Incidence
Bioprosthesis
Propensity Score
Sternotomy
Body Surface Area
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Survival

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Magruder, J. Trent ; Grimm, Joshua C. ; Kilic, Arman ; Crawford, Todd ; Conte, John ; Cameron, Duke E. ; Shah, Ashish S. / Mini-aortic valve replacements are not associated with an increased incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch : a propensity-scored analysis. In: General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 64, No. 3. pp. 144-148.
@article{92e5f859090c4e058b7a3b3bc53a98f6,
title = "Mini-aortic valve replacements are not associated with an increased incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch: a propensity-scored analysis",
abstract = "Objectives: We sought to determine whether an AVR performed though a partial upper hemisternotomy (“mini-AVR”) resulted in a greater incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) than those through a full median sternotomy (“AVR”). Methods: Patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Moderate PPM was defined as an in vivo effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2 body surface area; severe PPM was defined as ≤0.65 cm2/m2. A propensity score-matched analysis was utilized to compare the incidence of PPM between these groups. Results: Of the 630 patients undergoing aortic valve surgery, 90 (14.3 {\%}) received mini-AVRs and 540 (85.7 {\%}) received regular AVRs. After propensity matching, we established two cohorts of 85 patients receiving each procedure. Both cohorts were similar with regard to all preoperative covariates including mean age (65.5 vs. 65.1, p = 0.85), diabetes (17.7 vs. 22.4 {\%}), mean BMI (28.3 vs. 28.6, p = 0.73), mean EF (56.9 vs. 55.6, p = 0.43), proportion of patients with aortic stenosis (70.6 vs. 71.8 {\%}, p = 1.00), preoperative valve area (0.88 vs. 0.93 cm2, p = 0.67), and proportion who received a bioprosthesis (85.9 vs. 83.5 {\%}, p = 0.59). Postoperatively, 27.4 {\%} of mini-AVRs and 26.8 {\%} of AVRs had moderate PPM (p = 0.93); 2.4 and 1.2 {\%} had severe PPM (p = 0.66). Kaplan–Meier analysis also failed to reveal a difference in 1-year survival between mini and regular AVRs (93.7 vs. 90.5 {\%}, p = 0.49). Conclusions: After propensity matching, mini-AVRs are not associated with a greater incidence of PPM than regular AVRs. Severe PPM was rare across both procedure types in this surgical series.",
author = "Magruder, {J. Trent} and Grimm, {Joshua C.} and Arman Kilic and Todd Crawford and John Conte and Cameron, {Duke E.} and Shah, {Ashish S.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11748-015-0614-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "144--148",
journal = "General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "1863-6705",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "3",

}

Mini-aortic valve replacements are not associated with an increased incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch : a propensity-scored analysis. / Magruder, J. Trent; Grimm, Joshua C.; Kilic, Arman; Crawford, Todd; Conte, John; Cameron, Duke E.; Shah, Ashish S.

In: General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 64, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 144-148.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mini-aortic valve replacements are not associated with an increased incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch

T2 - a propensity-scored analysis

AU - Magruder, J. Trent

AU - Grimm, Joshua C.

AU - Kilic, Arman

AU - Crawford, Todd

AU - Conte, John

AU - Cameron, Duke E.

AU - Shah, Ashish S.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Objectives: We sought to determine whether an AVR performed though a partial upper hemisternotomy (“mini-AVR”) resulted in a greater incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) than those through a full median sternotomy (“AVR”). Methods: Patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Moderate PPM was defined as an in vivo effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2 body surface area; severe PPM was defined as ≤0.65 cm2/m2. A propensity score-matched analysis was utilized to compare the incidence of PPM between these groups. Results: Of the 630 patients undergoing aortic valve surgery, 90 (14.3 %) received mini-AVRs and 540 (85.7 %) received regular AVRs. After propensity matching, we established two cohorts of 85 patients receiving each procedure. Both cohorts were similar with regard to all preoperative covariates including mean age (65.5 vs. 65.1, p = 0.85), diabetes (17.7 vs. 22.4 %), mean BMI (28.3 vs. 28.6, p = 0.73), mean EF (56.9 vs. 55.6, p = 0.43), proportion of patients with aortic stenosis (70.6 vs. 71.8 %, p = 1.00), preoperative valve area (0.88 vs. 0.93 cm2, p = 0.67), and proportion who received a bioprosthesis (85.9 vs. 83.5 %, p = 0.59). Postoperatively, 27.4 % of mini-AVRs and 26.8 % of AVRs had moderate PPM (p = 0.93); 2.4 and 1.2 % had severe PPM (p = 0.66). Kaplan–Meier analysis also failed to reveal a difference in 1-year survival between mini and regular AVRs (93.7 vs. 90.5 %, p = 0.49). Conclusions: After propensity matching, mini-AVRs are not associated with a greater incidence of PPM than regular AVRs. Severe PPM was rare across both procedure types in this surgical series.

AB - Objectives: We sought to determine whether an AVR performed though a partial upper hemisternotomy (“mini-AVR”) resulted in a greater incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) than those through a full median sternotomy (“AVR”). Methods: Patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement from 2008 to 2013 were identified. Moderate PPM was defined as an in vivo effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2 body surface area; severe PPM was defined as ≤0.65 cm2/m2. A propensity score-matched analysis was utilized to compare the incidence of PPM between these groups. Results: Of the 630 patients undergoing aortic valve surgery, 90 (14.3 %) received mini-AVRs and 540 (85.7 %) received regular AVRs. After propensity matching, we established two cohorts of 85 patients receiving each procedure. Both cohorts were similar with regard to all preoperative covariates including mean age (65.5 vs. 65.1, p = 0.85), diabetes (17.7 vs. 22.4 %), mean BMI (28.3 vs. 28.6, p = 0.73), mean EF (56.9 vs. 55.6, p = 0.43), proportion of patients with aortic stenosis (70.6 vs. 71.8 %, p = 1.00), preoperative valve area (0.88 vs. 0.93 cm2, p = 0.67), and proportion who received a bioprosthesis (85.9 vs. 83.5 %, p = 0.59). Postoperatively, 27.4 % of mini-AVRs and 26.8 % of AVRs had moderate PPM (p = 0.93); 2.4 and 1.2 % had severe PPM (p = 0.66). Kaplan–Meier analysis also failed to reveal a difference in 1-year survival between mini and regular AVRs (93.7 vs. 90.5 %, p = 0.49). Conclusions: After propensity matching, mini-AVRs are not associated with a greater incidence of PPM than regular AVRs. Severe PPM was rare across both procedure types in this surgical series.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959336476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959336476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11748-015-0614-z

DO - 10.1007/s11748-015-0614-z

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 144

EP - 148

JO - General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 1863-6705

IS - 3

ER -