Patient prosthesis mismatch in adult congenital heart disease

Hernández-Vaquero, Daniel

doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308715

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If we take the EOA from published in vivo reference values, we are not taking into account possible variations between individuals. Geometric orifice area or in vitro area given by manufactures are used methods but are wrong measures [ 12 , 21 , 22 ]. Some experts think that the best moment for PPM evaluation is at the first visit after hospital discharge, while others think that it is at 6 months after surgery [ 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some experts think that the best moment for PPM evaluation is at the first visit after hospital discharge, while others think that it is at 6 months after surgery [ 21 ]. However, patients who die in this interval due to PPM will not be taken into account, and the prevalence of PPM may be undervalued [ 12 ]. Other experts proposed early during the first week after surgery or at hospital discharge, which was our method [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moderate PPM was defined as the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) ≤ 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 and >0.65 cm 2 /m 2 . Severe PPM was defined as the IEOA ≤ 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 [ 12 ]. Body surface area (BSA) was calculated with the DuBois formula.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EOA depends on the following: (1) the type of prosthesis; (2) the size of the implanted prosthesis, which depends on (a) the native aortic annulus, or as an estimation, the left ventricular outflow tract diameter (LVOTD), as previously reported [ 4 , 14 ]; and (b) the stiffness or calcification of the native aortic annulus. This is difficult to control, but older age and diabetes have been identified as risk factors for a stiffer annulus [ 3 , 12 ]. Finally, the BSA is the other variable of the formula.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perceval or Trifecta to Prevent Patient–Prosthesis Mismatch

Hernández-Vaquero

Vigil-Escalera

Persia

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Trifecta aortic valve has excellent hemodynamics characteristics. Moreover, the Perceval prosthesis may achieve better hemodynamics than the conventional valves; therefore, it has been proposed to reduce the incidence of patient–prosthesis mismatch. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of this complication between both prostheses. All patients who underwent valve replacement with a Perceval or a Trifecta from 2016 to 2020 at our institution were included. We calculated the prevalence of patient–prosthesis mismatch for each prosthesis and size and performed a multinomial logistic regression model to investigate the impact of choosing one prosthesis over the other. A total of 516 patients were analyzed. Moderate mismatch was present in 33 (8.6%) in the Trifecta group and 28 (21.4%) in the Perceval group, p < 0.001. Severe mismatch was present in 8 (2.1%) patients with Trifecta and 5 (3.8%) patients with Perceval, p = 0.33. Compared with the Perceval, the Trifecta prosthesis was shown to reduce moderate patient–prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.3–0.9, p = 0.02). Both prostheses led to a similar risk of severe patient–prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3–2.8, p = 0.79). Both prostheses provide a very low risk of severe patient–prosthesis mismatch. Compared with the Perceval prothesis, the Trifecta prosthesis is able to reduce by 50% the risk of moderate mismatch.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceval or Trifecta to Prevent Patient–Prosthesis Mismatch

Hernández-Vaquero

Vigil-Escalera

Persia

et al. 2020

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The postoperative images were used for PPM evaluation. PPM was defined as follows: moderate PPM when the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) was less than or equal to 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 and greater than 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ; and severe PPM when the IEOA was less than or equal to 0.65cm 2 /m 2 [11]. Body surface area (BSA) was calculated using the DuBois formula.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%