Abstract
Prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) is always of concern when performing aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with a small aortic annulus. Although bioprosthetic AVR is preferred in patients older than 65 years, we have experienced cases in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus whereby we could not implant small-sized bioprosthetic valves. We have implanted St. Jude Medical Regent (SJMR) mechanical valves (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) as necessary, even in elderly patients with no aortic annulus enlargement. We investigated our experiences of AVR with SJMR mechanical valves of 21 mm or less in size. Between January 2006 and December 2009, 40 patients underwent AVR with SJMR mechanical valves ≤21 mm in size: 9 patients received 21-mm valves, 19 received 19-mm valves, and 12 received 17-mm valves. The mean age was 65.9 ± 9.5 years, and 25 patients (62.5 %) were 65 years or older. We evaluated the clinical outcome and the echocardiographic data for each valve size. There was no operative or hospital mortality. The mean duration of clinical follow-up was 31.2 ± 17.6 months. During follow-up, there were no hospitalizations due to heart failure. The cumulative valve-related event-free survival was 93 % at 33 months, and the cumulative hemorrhagic event-free survival was 93 % at 33 months and 84 % at 43 months, using the Kaplan–Meier method. At follow-up, the mean values of the measured effective orifice area (EOA) for the 21-, 19-, and 17-mm prostheses were 2.00 ± 0.22, 1.74 ± 0.37, and 1.25 ± 0.26 cm2, and the mean measured EOA index (EOAI) were 1.17 ± 0.12, 1.11 ± 0.21 and 0.90 ± 0.22 cm2/m2, respectively. A PPM (EOAI ≤0.85) was documented in 5 patients, all of whom had received a 17-mm SJMR valve. AVR with SJMR valves of 21 mm or less in size appears to show satisfactory clinical and hemodynamic results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rahimtoola SH (1978) The problem of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch. Circulation 58:20–24
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, De Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shanewise JS (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 114:e92–e98
Florath I, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Alexander T, Ennker IC, Ennker J (2005) Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves. Heart 91:1023–1029
Doss M, Martens S, Wood JP, Aybek T, Kleine P, Wimmer Greinecker G, Moritz A (2003) Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprosthesis in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23:299–304
Sommers KE, David TE (1997) Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargement of the aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg 63:1608–1612
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Métras J, Lemieux MD (2001) Patient-prosthesis mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. Ann Thorac Surg 71:S265–S268
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2006) Prosthesis–patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 92:1022–1029
Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise JS, Solomon SD, Spencer KT, Sutton MS, Stewart WJ (2005) Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from American Society of Echocardiography’s guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Association of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 18(12):1440–1463
Walker DK, Brendzel AM, Stotten LN (1999) The new St. Jude Medical Regent mechanical heart valve: laboratory measurements of hemodynamic performance. J Heart Valve Dis 8:687–696
Lund O, Nielsen SL, Arildsen H, Ilkjaer LB, Pilegaard HK (2000) Standard aortic St. Jude valves at 18 years: performance profile and determinants of outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 69:1459–1465
Chaux A, Gray RJ, Matloff JM, Feldman H, Sustaita H (1981) An appreciation of the new St. Jude valvular prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 81:202–211
Arom KV, Nicoloff DM, Kersten TE, Northrup WF III, Lindsay WG, Emery RW (1989) Ten years’ experience with the St. Jude Medical valve prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 47:831–837
Arom KV (1993) St. Jude Medical prosthesis: another 10 year follow up report. Ann Thorac Surg 56:403–404
Kratz JM, Sade RM, Crawford FA Jr, Crumbley AJ 3rd, Stroud MR (1994) The risk of small St. Jude aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 57:1114–1119
Fllis JT, Yoganathan AP (2000) A comparison of the hinge and the near-hinge flow fields of the St. Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus and Regent bileaflet mechanical heart valves. J Thorac Cardivasc Surg 119:83–93
Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kennel WB, Castelli WP (1990) Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham heart study. N Engl J Med 322:1561–1566
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2000) Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 36(4):1131–1141
Vicchio M, Corte AD, De Santo LS, De Feo M, Caianiello G, Scardone M, Cotrufo M (2008) Prosthesis–patient mismatch in the elderly: survival, ventricular mass regression, and quality of life. Ann Thorac Surg 86:1791–1798
Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, Melby SJ, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Codd JE, Crabtree TD, Barner HB, Damiano RJ Jr (2006) Prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg 81(2):481–489
Castro LJ, Arcidi JM Jr, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA (2002) Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg 74:31–36
Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, Masters RG, Bédard P, Lam BK, Rubens FD, Hendry PJ, Mesana TG, Ruel M (2008) Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: is there a benefit? Ann Thorac Surg 85:94–100
Peterson MD, Borger MA, Feindel CM, David TE (2007) Aortic annular enlargement during aortic valve replacement: improving results with time. Ann Thorac Surg 83:2044–2049
Kulik A (2010) Aortic root enlargement: worth the effort? Ann Thorac Surg 90(3):703–705
Arom KV, Emery RW, Nicoloff DM, Petersen RJ (1996) Anticoagulant related complications in elderly patients with St. Jude mechanical valve prostheses. J Heart Valve Dis 5(5):505–510
Matsuyama K, Matsumoto M, Sugita T, Nishizawa J, Yoshida K, Tokuda Y, Matsumoto T (2002) Anticoagulant therapy in Japanese patients with mechanical mitral valves. Circ J 66(7):668–670
Sawaki S, Usui A, Abe T, Yoshikawa M, Akita T, Ueda Y (2006) Late mortality in elderly patients with mechanical heart valves. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 14(3):189–194
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Dr Toshihiko Shibata, chief surgeon of Kansai Rosai Hospital between 2006 and 2007, for his excellent surgical procedures and management. We also acknowledge the excellent perioperative management of Drs Takeshi Ikuta and Yasuyuki Bito.
Conflict of interest
All authors have no conflicts of interest or relationships to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mizoguchi, H., Sakaki, M., Inoue, K. et al. Mid-term results of small-sized St. Jude Medical Regent prosthetic valves (21 mm or less) for small aortic annulus. Heart Vessels 28, 769–774 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-012-0306-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-012-0306-x