A Retrospective Analysis of Standardized Gradient Calculations for Evaluating Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Following Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Muhammet Fethi Sağlam, Emrah Uguz, Kemal Eşref Erdogan, Hüseyin Ünsal Erçelik, Murat Yücel, Altay Alili, Nur Gizem Elipek, Okay Güven Karaca, Erol Şener
{"title":"A Retrospective Analysis of Standardized Gradient Calculations for Evaluating Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Following Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement.","authors":"Muhammet Fethi Sağlam, Emrah Uguz, Kemal Eşref Erdogan, Hüseyin Ünsal Erçelik, Murat Yücel, Altay Alili, Nur Gizem Elipek, Okay Güven Karaca, Erol Şener","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15050567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular heart diseases, particularly in the elderly, with a prevalence of approximately 3% in individuals over 75 years of age. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the standard treatment, yet postoperative hemodynamic assessment is often complicated by variations in prosthetic valve size, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), effective orifice area (EOA), and body surface area (BSA). These factors significantly influence prosthetic valve function and contribute to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), which has been associated with worse clinical outcomes. Traditional transvalvular gradient measurements often fail to account for these patient-specific variables. This study introduces a novel approach to standardized gradient calculations, aiming to enhance the accuracy and comparability of prosthetic valve assessments. <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 115 patients who underwent mechanical AVR at a single center. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the prosthetic valve type: St. Jude Medical (SJM) HP (<i>n</i> = 31); SJM Regent (<i>n</i> = 54); and those who underwent aortic root enlargement (ARE) (<i>n</i> = 30). Preoperative and postoperative transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed to measure conventional and standardized transvalvular gradients. Four novel standardized gradient calculations were developed to adjust for individual hemodynamic differences, improving the accuracy of prosthetic valve function assessment. <b>Results</b>: Standardized gradient calculations demonstrated significant differences between prosthesis types. Postoperative standardized gradients were significantly higher in the SJM HP group compared to the SJM Regent and aortic-root-enlargement groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>p</i> < 0.05). The lowest standardized gradients were observed in patients who received the SJM Regent prostheses (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Although conventional measurements showed no significant differences, standardized calculations revealed that patients with 19 mm prostheses exhibited significantly higher transvalvular gradients than those with 21 mm prostheses (<i>p</i> < 0.05), emphasizing the clinical importance of prosthesis size in postoperative hemodynamics. <b>Conclusions</b>: Standardized gradient calculations provide a more objective, reliable, and patient-specific assessment of prosthetic valve function by minimizing interpatient variability. This approach improves the detection of patient-prosthesis mismatch and optimizes postoperative hemodynamic evaluation, potentially leading to better prosthesis selection and surgical decision-making. However, further validation is required in larger cohorts before these methods can be widely adopted into clinical practice. Future studies should assess their impact on long-term clinical outcomes, including left ventricular remodeling and patient survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898662/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15050567","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular heart diseases, particularly in the elderly, with a prevalence of approximately 3% in individuals over 75 years of age. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the standard treatment, yet postoperative hemodynamic assessment is often complicated by variations in prosthetic valve size, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), effective orifice area (EOA), and body surface area (BSA). These factors significantly influence prosthetic valve function and contribute to patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), which has been associated with worse clinical outcomes. Traditional transvalvular gradient measurements often fail to account for these patient-specific variables. This study introduces a novel approach to standardized gradient calculations, aiming to enhance the accuracy and comparability of prosthetic valve assessments. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 115 patients who underwent mechanical AVR at a single center. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the prosthetic valve type: St. Jude Medical (SJM) HP (n = 31); SJM Regent (n = 54); and those who underwent aortic root enlargement (ARE) (n = 30). Preoperative and postoperative transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed to measure conventional and standardized transvalvular gradients. Four novel standardized gradient calculations were developed to adjust for individual hemodynamic differences, improving the accuracy of prosthetic valve function assessment. Results: Standardized gradient calculations demonstrated significant differences between prosthesis types. Postoperative standardized gradients were significantly higher in the SJM HP group compared to the SJM Regent and aortic-root-enlargement groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.05). The lowest standardized gradients were observed in patients who received the SJM Regent prostheses (p < 0.05). Although conventional measurements showed no significant differences, standardized calculations revealed that patients with 19 mm prostheses exhibited significantly higher transvalvular gradients than those with 21 mm prostheses (p < 0.05), emphasizing the clinical importance of prosthesis size in postoperative hemodynamics. Conclusions: Standardized gradient calculations provide a more objective, reliable, and patient-specific assessment of prosthetic valve function by minimizing interpatient variability. This approach improves the detection of patient-prosthesis mismatch and optimizes postoperative hemodynamic evaluation, potentially leading to better prosthesis selection and surgical decision-making. However, further validation is required in larger cohorts before these methods can be widely adopted into clinical practice. Future studies should assess their impact on long-term clinical outcomes, including left ventricular remodeling and patient survival.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信