Effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic position on late-onset tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes after double valve replacement

2Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: Significant late-onset tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is unfortunately common after double valve replacement (DVR); however, its underlying factors remain undefined. We evaluated the effect of aortic patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on lateonset TR and clinical outcomes after DVR. Materials and Methods: Of the 2392 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between January 1990 and May 2014 at our institution, we retrospectively studied 462 patients who underwent DVR (excluding concomitant tricuspid valvular annuloplasty or replacement). Survival and freedom from grade >3 TR were compared between PPM (n=152) and non-PPM (n=310) groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Although the overall survival rates were similar between the two groups at 5 and 10 years (95%, 91% vs. 96%, 93%, p=0.412), grade >3 TR-free survival was significantly lower in the PPM group (98%, 91% vs. 99%, 95%, p=0.014). Small body-surface area, atrial fibrillation, PPM, and subaortic pannus were risk factors for TR progression. However, aortic prosthesis size and trans-valvular pressure gradient were not significant factors for either TR progression or overall survival. Conclusion: Aortic PPM in DVR, regardless of mitral prosthesis size, was associated with late TR progression, but was not significantly correlated with overall survival. Therefore, we recommend careful echocardiographic follow-up for the early detection of TR progression in patients with aortic PPM in DVR.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, S. H., Youn, Y. N., Chang, B. C., Joo, H. C., Lee, S., & Yoo, K. J. (2017). Effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic position on late-onset tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes after double valve replacement. Yonsei Medical Journal, 58(5), 968–974. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.968

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free