{"title":"较小的生物假体瓣膜可能与较差的临床结果和减少sAVR再次手术的自由度相关。","authors":"Oliver Lee, David Derish, Dominique Shum-Tim","doi":"10.3390/jcdd12070277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is a ubiquitous procedure, with several factors identified in affecting outcomes. We hypothesize that smaller valves may be associated with worse outcomes and decreased freedom from clinical events, and a shift in implanting larger valves whenever possible may confer benefit to the patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative review of the literature was conducted using a systematic search strategy to evaluate studies examining the relationship between bioprosthetic valve size and outcomes. Inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting paired data on valve size and clinical endpoints in surgical AVR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 15 reviewed studies, smaller valve sizes were consistently associated with higher post-operative transvalvular gradients (6/7 studies) and increased reintervention rates (5/8 studies). Associations with accelerated structural valve degeneration (SVD) (3/5 studies) and reduced survival (8/11 studies) were also observed, although heterogeneity in study design and follow-up durations limited definitive conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that larger valve sizes may improve freedom from SVD, reduce reintervention rates, and enhanced survival. This may also justify the slight increased risk of enlarging the aortic root to accommodate a larger bioprosthetic valve prosthesis. Further high-quality, controlled studies are needed to clarify the independent impact of valve size on long-term outcomes and guide surgical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":15197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"12 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Smaller Bioprosthetic Valves May Be Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes and Reduced Freedom from Reoperation in sAVR.\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Lee, David Derish, Dominique Shum-Tim\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jcdd12070277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is a ubiquitous procedure, with several factors identified in affecting outcomes. We hypothesize that smaller valves may be associated with worse outcomes and decreased freedom from clinical events, and a shift in implanting larger valves whenever possible may confer benefit to the patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative review of the literature was conducted using a systematic search strategy to evaluate studies examining the relationship between bioprosthetic valve size and outcomes. Inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting paired data on valve size and clinical endpoints in surgical AVR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 15 reviewed studies, smaller valve sizes were consistently associated with higher post-operative transvalvular gradients (6/7 studies) and increased reintervention rates (5/8 studies). Associations with accelerated structural valve degeneration (SVD) (3/5 studies) and reduced survival (8/11 studies) were also observed, although heterogeneity in study design and follow-up durations limited definitive conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that larger valve sizes may improve freedom from SVD, reduce reintervention rates, and enhanced survival. This may also justify the slight increased risk of enlarging the aortic root to accommodate a larger bioprosthetic valve prosthesis. Further high-quality, controlled studies are needed to clarify the independent impact of valve size on long-term outcomes and guide surgical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"volume\":\"12 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12070277\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12070277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Smaller Bioprosthetic Valves May Be Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes and Reduced Freedom from Reoperation in sAVR.
Background: Surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is a ubiquitous procedure, with several factors identified in affecting outcomes. We hypothesize that smaller valves may be associated with worse outcomes and decreased freedom from clinical events, and a shift in implanting larger valves whenever possible may confer benefit to the patient.
Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using a systematic search strategy to evaluate studies examining the relationship between bioprosthetic valve size and outcomes. Inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting paired data on valve size and clinical endpoints in surgical AVR.
Results: Among the 15 reviewed studies, smaller valve sizes were consistently associated with higher post-operative transvalvular gradients (6/7 studies) and increased reintervention rates (5/8 studies). Associations with accelerated structural valve degeneration (SVD) (3/5 studies) and reduced survival (8/11 studies) were also observed, although heterogeneity in study design and follow-up durations limited definitive conclusions.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that larger valve sizes may improve freedom from SVD, reduce reintervention rates, and enhanced survival. This may also justify the slight increased risk of enlarging the aortic root to accommodate a larger bioprosthetic valve prosthesis. Further high-quality, controlled studies are needed to clarify the independent impact of valve size on long-term outcomes and guide surgical decision-making.