Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement on long-term survival in patients greater than 70 years of age compared with those less than or equal to 70 years of age. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2007, 1399 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, including 881 (63%) patients older than 70 years of age. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was defined as severe (prosthetic effective orifice area/body surface area < 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)), moderate (0.65-0.85 cm(2)/m(2)), or absent (>0.85 cm(2)/m(2)). For patients less than or equal to 70 years of age, mismatch was severe in 62 (12%), moderate in 251 (48%), and absent in 205 (40%). For patients greater than 70 years of age, mismatch was severe in 109 (12%), moderate in 451 (51%), and absent in 321 (37%). There was no difference in the distribution of prosthesis-patient mismatch between age groups (P = .50). RESULTS: For patients less than or equal to 70 years, prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired long-term survival (P = .02). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 61% +/- 7% and 28% +/- 12% for severe mismatch, 65% +/- 3% and 40% +/- 5% for moderate mismatch, and 73% +/- 5% and 46% +/- 9% for no mismatch. For patients greater than 70 years, prosthesis-patient mismatch did not affect long-term survival (P = .25). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 62% +/- 5% and 42% +/- 6% for severe mismatch, 62% +/- 2% and 30% +/- 5% for moderate mismatch, and 53% +/- 4% and 29% +/- 5% for absent mismatch. CONCLUSIONS: After bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, prosthesis-patient mismatch had a negative impact on late survival for patients less than or equal to 70 years of age, but for patients greater than 70 years of age, prosthesis-patient mismatch did not influence late survival.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare operative mortality and long-term outcome of patients undergoing tricuspid valve replacement versus tricuspid valve repair. METHODS: From February 1986 to July 2006, 315 patients underwent tricuspid valve surgery including 93 replacements (72 biologic, 21 mechanical) and 222 repairs. To control for selection bias and varying comorbidities, a matched cohort of patients undergoing repair versus replacement was selected using propensity score analysis (68 patients in each group). RESULTS: In the propensity-matched cohorts, operative mortality was similar for tricuspid valve replacement (13% +/- 4%) and repair (18% +/- 5%; p = 0.64). Intensive care unit length of stay was similar between cohorts (replacement, 4 days; repair, 3 days; p = 0.45), but the replacements had a significantly longer hospital lengths of stay (9 days versus 6 days; p = 0.01). In the replacement cohort, survival was 85% at 1 year, 79% at 5 years, and 49% at 10 years. In the repair cohort, survival rates were similar with 80% at 1 year, 72% at 5 years, and 66% at 10 years (p = 0.66 versus replacement). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of tricuspid valve disease, regardless of the operative approach, is associated with significant early and late mortality. However, there is no difference favoring tricuspid valve repair over replacement. Thus, we should not hesitate to consider tricuspid valve replacement for patients in whom we believe there is a reasonable chance for recurrence of regurgitation after repair.