Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement.

  • Pibarot, Philippe1
  • Magne, Julien2
  • Leipsic, Jonathon3
  • Côté, Nancy4
  • Blanke, Philippe3
  • Thourani, Vinod H5
  • Hahn, Rebecca6
  • 1 Department of Cardiology, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Canada)
  • 2 Service Cardiologie, Hôpital Dupuytren, CHU Limoges, Limoges, France; INSERM 1094, Limoges, France. , (France)
  • 3 Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia and St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. , (Canada)
  • 4 Department of Cardiology, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. , (Canada)
  • 5 Department of Cardiology, MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  • 6 Department of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Published Article
JACC. Cardiovascular imaging
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.020
PMID: 30621987


Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) occurs when the effective orifice area (EOA) of the prosthetic valve is too small in relation to a patient's body size, thus resulting in high residual postoperative pressure gradients across the prosthesis. Severe PPM occurs in 2% to 20% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and is associated with 1.5- to 2.0-fold increase in the risk of mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the role of multimodality imaging in the assessment, prediction, prevention, and management of PPM following AVR. The risk of PPM can be anticipated at the time of AVR by calculating the predicted indexed from the normal reference value of EOA of the selected prosthesis and patient's body surface area. The strategies to prevent PPM at the time of surgical AVR include: 1) implanting a newer generation of prosthetic valve with better hemodynamic; 2) enlarging the aortic root or annulus to accommodate a larger prosthetic valve; or 3) performing TAVR rather than surgical AVR. The identification and quantitation of PPM as well as its distinction versus prosthetic valve stenosis is primarily based on transthoracic echocardiography, but important information may be obtained from other imaging modalities such as transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography. PPM is characterized by high transprosthetic velocity and gradients, normal EOA, small indexed EOA, and normal leaflet morphology and mobility. Transesophageal echocardiography and multidetector computed tomography are particularly helpful to assess prosthetic valve leaflet morphology and mobility, which is a cornerstone of the differential diagnosis between PPM and pathologic valve obstruction. Severe symptomatic PPM following AVR with a bioprosthetic valve may be treated by redo surgery or the transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure with fracturing of the surgical valve stent. Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times