Patient/prosthesis mismatch: how to evaluate and when to act?

Similar documents
Prosthetic valve dysfunction: stenosis or regurgitation

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch or Prosthetic Valve Stenosis?

A Practical Approach to Prosthetic Valves

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

How to Avoid Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

25 different brand names >44 different models Sizes mm

Management of Difficult Aortic Root, Old and New solutions

PPM: How to fit a big valve in a small heart

Comprehensive Echo Assessment of Aortic Stenosis

MAKING SENSE OF MODERATE GRADIENTS IN PATIENTS WITH SYMPTOMATIC AORTIC STENOSIS

Aortic Valve Replacement Improves Outcome in Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction: PRO!

QUANTIFICATION AND PREVENTION TECHNIQUES OF PROSTHESIS-PATIENT MISMATCH

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Mitral Valve Prostheses

Aortic Stenosis: Spectrum of Disease, Low Flow/Low Gradient and Variants

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Randomized Trial of a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

TAVR: Echo Measurements Pre, Post And Intra Procedure

Congenital. Unicuspid Bicuspid Quadricuspid

Stage of Valvular AS. Outline 10/14/16. Low-flow and Other Challenges to the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis. Severe AS

Hemodynamics Benefit of Supra-Annular Design in Failed Bio-Prosthetic Valves

TAVR TTE INTERROGATION BY ALAN MATTHEWS

SOLO SMART. The smart way to return to life. Native-like performance now with stented-like implantability

Valvular Regurgitation: Can We Do Better Than Colour Doppler?

Usually we DON T need to go beyond the gradient

TSDA Boot Camp September 13-16, Introduction to Aortic Valve Surgery. George L. Hicks, Jr., MD

«Paradoxical» low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved LV function: A Silent Killer

Experience with 500 Stentless Aortic Valve Replacements

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THESE ECHO MEASUREMENTS ANYWAY?

Back to Basics: Common Errors In Quantitation In Everyday Practice

How Do I Evaluate a Patient Being Considered for TAVR? Sunday, February 14, :00 11:25 PM 25 min

Workshop Facing the challenge of TAVI 2016

Cases of Abnormal Prosthetic Valves

Copyright by ICR Publishers 2014

Valvular Heart Disease

Echo Assessment Pre-TAVI

Prof. Patrizio LANCELLOTTI, MD, PhD Heart Valve Clinic, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman, Liège, BELGIUM

Indicator Mild Moderate Severe

The best in heart valve disease Aortic valve stenosis

Clinical predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis

Dobutamine Stress testing In Low Flow, Low EF, Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis Case Studies

RVOTO adult and post-op

A new way to look at the aortic valve

Affecting the elderly Requiring new approaches. Echocardiographic Evaluation of Hemodynamic Severity. Increasing prevalence Mostly degenerative

Low Gradient AS Normal LVEF

SONOGRAPHER & NURSE LED VALVE CLINICS

How to assess ischaemic MR?

Natural History and Echo Evaluation of Aortic Stenosis

Comments restricted to Sapien and Corevalve 9/12/2016. Disclosures: Core Lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Middlepeak, Medtronic

PROSTHETIC. V PROSTHETIC.V

Aortic Stenosis and Perioperative Risk With Non-cardiac Surgery

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The PARTNER Trial

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement

Imaging Assessment of Aortic Stenosis/Aortic Regurgitation

Disclosures Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, FASE

Aortic stenosis with concomitant mitral regurgitation

Assessment of the St. Jude Medical Regent Prosthetic Valve by Continuous-Wave Doppler. and dobutamine stress echocardiography

New imaging modalities for assessment of TAVI procedure and results. R Dulgheru, MD Heart Valve Clinic CHU, Liege

Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was first defined

CARDIACSURGERY TODAY. Commentary and Analysis on Advances in the Surgical Treatment of Cardiac Disease

High transvalvular pressure gradients on intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography after aortic valve replacement: what does it mean?

New Cardiovascular Devices and Interventions: Non-Contrast MRI for TAVR Abhishek Chaturvedi Assistant Professor. Cardiothoracic Radiology

PROSTHETIC VALVE BOARD REVIEW

Favorable Results in Patients with Small Size CarboMedics Heart Valves in the Aortic Position

Hemodynamic Assessment. Assessment of Systolic Function Doppler Hemodynamics

P = 4V 2. IVC Dimensions 10/20/2014. Comprehensive Hemodynamic Evaluation by Doppler Echocardiography. The Simplified Bernoulli Equation

HEMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Late results of aortic root repair & replacement. John Pepper Imperial College and Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.

A Case of Aortic Valve Replacement with St. Jude Medical Regent Valve (First Implant in Japan)

DISCLOSURE. Relevant Financial Relationship(s) Off Label Usage. None. None

Early Surgery in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Pros and Cons

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current and Future Devices: How do They Work, Eligibility, Review of Data

Cardiac catheterisation in AS

Relevant Financial Relationship(s) Off Label Usage. None. None

Mixed aortic valve disease

Reverse left atrium and left ventricle remodeling after aortic valve interventions

Clinical Outcome of Tricuspid Regurgitation. David Messika-Zeitoun

Aortic Stenosis: Interventional Choice for a 70-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV? Interventional Choice for a 90-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV?

Aortic Stenosis: UPDATE Anjan Sinha, MD Krannert Institute of Cardiology

Procedural Guidance of TAVR: How to Assure it Goes Right and What to Do If It Doesn t

Doppler echocardiography is currently the

Aortic Valvular Stenosis

The impact of prosthesis patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement varies according to age at operation

NEW GUIDELINES PAGE 9

DOPPLER HEMODYNAMICS (1) QUANTIFICATION OF PRESSURE GRADIENTS and INTRACARDIAC PRESSURES

PVL Assessment. Is paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR still an important consideration in 2018?

Quantification of Mitral Stenosis: Planimetry, pressure Half time, Continuity Common Errors

Paradoxical low flow-low gradient severe aortic stenosis: where are we?

Potential conflicts of interest

Sténose aortique à Bas Débit et Bas Gradient

TAVR-Update Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor Michigan State University, Central

Case Reviews: Hemodynamic Calculations in Valvular Regurgitation

Lessons From The Computer Model and How We Do Root Replacement

Low Gradient Severe? AS

Appendix II: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY ANALYSIS

Quantification of Aortic Regurgitation

Does Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Affect Long-term Results after Mitral Valve Replacement?

Low Gradient Severe AS: Who Qualifies for TAVR? Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor

Managing the Low Output Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis Patient

What are the best diagnostic tools to quantify aortic regurgitation?

Transcription:

Patient/prosthesis mismatch: how to evaluate and when to act? Svend Aakhus, MD, PhD Oslo University Hospital, Norway Disclosures: No conflict of interest

Types of aortic valve prostheses (AVR) Mechanical single disk Mechanical bi-leaflet AVR Stented bio-prosthesis Stentless bio-prosthesis

Definition of patient/prosthesis mismatch, PPM Valve orifice area inadequate in a patient despite normal function of the prosthesis Pibarot P and Dumesnil JG. JACC 2000;36:1131

mean AVR gradient (mmhg) Classification of PPM Severe PPM: EOAi < 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 rest Moderate PPM: 0.65 EOAi 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 No PPM: EOAi > 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 peak exercise Pibarot P and Dumesnil JG. JACC 2000;36:1131

Prevalence of AVR PPM Severe (EOAi<0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ): 2% Moderate (EOAi 0.65-0.85 cm 2 /m 2 ): 31% Normal (EOAi>0.85 cm 2 /m 2 ): 67% Mohty D et al. JACC 2009;53:39

Patient example F 73 yrs St. Jude 19, NYHA II Vmax 3.6 m/s MG 24 mmhg EOA 1.1 cm 2 AVR dysfunction? JG290337 5 yrs later: NYHA II Vmax 3.8 m/s MG 31 mmhg EOA 0.9 cm 2

Causes of increased AVR gradient Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) Gorlin equation Pressure recovery ΔP = [ CO ] k. A 2 Increased flow Obstruction LVOT AVR malfunction AVR gradient relates to: Transvalvular flow Effective orifice area

Determinants of AVR gradient AVR bioprosthesis In vitro study Dumesnil JG and Yoganathan AP. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1992;6:34

Evaluation of AVR AVR maximal blood flow velocity AVR mean gradient AVR Doppler acceleration time/ velocity profile Doppler velocity index (DVI) Effective orifice area (EOA) Fluoroscopy

AVR, Doppler flow Maximal blood flow velocity, Vmax AV Mean gradient, MG ΔP =4 v 2 Acceleration time, AT Doppler velocity index, DVI: CW AVR VTI AV MG Vmax AV PW LVOT DVI Vmax = Vmax LVOT Vmax AV VTI LVOT Vmax LVOT AT DVI VTI = VTI LVOT VTI AV

AVR effective orifice area, EOA Doppler LVOT LVOT CSA Doppler AVR PW Doppler LVOT VTI LVOT Continuity equation, EOA: EOA = CSA LVOT x VTI LVOT VTI AV CSA LVOT = π(d/2) 2 CW Doppler AVR VTI AV EOAi = EOA/BSA (cm 2 /m 2 )

LVOT diameter in AVR LVOTd Ao AML HEA270759

AVR, fluoroscopy Knowledge of: Prosthesis characteristics Leaflet opening angle HSG261166

AVR prosthesis function Echo parameters: Normal Significant stenosis Peak velocity, m/s <3 >4 Mean gradient, mmhg <20 >35 AT, ms <80 >100 CW jet contour Triangular Rounded DVI 0.30 <0.25 EOA, cm 2 >1.2 <0.8 Adapted from: Zoghbi WA et al JASE 2009;22:975

Causes of increased AVR gradient JG290337 F 73 yrs St. Jude 19, NYHA II Vmax 3.6 m/s MG 24 mmhg AT 72 ms DVI VTI 0.34 EOAi 0.7 cm 2 /m 2 - PPM 5 yrs later: NYHA II Vmax 3.8 m/s MG 31 mmhg AT 65 ms DVI VTI 0.32 EOAi 0.6 cm 2 /m 2 Severe PPM?

Expect PPM in patients with: Larger BSA Smaller LVOT diameters Native aortic valve stenosis Older age (>70 years) Calcified aortic annulus

Consequences of PPM Increased AVR gradient Increased LV work Sustained LV hypertrophy Clinical symptoms Increased mortality and morbidity

PPM: 30-days relative mortality risk Blais C et al. Circulation 2003;108:983

PPM and long-term prognosis severe PPM moderate PPM Mohty D et al. JACC 2009;53:39

Other causes of increased AVR gradient - pressure recovery phenomenon Bileaflet prostheses, central high velocity jet EOA corrected for pressure recovery Energy loss coefficient: E L Co = EOA x Ao A Ao A - EOA Bach DS JACC CV img 2010;3:296 Small asc. aorta diameter ( 3.0 cm)

Other causes of increased AVR gradient - increased flow M 51 yrs CM23, NYHA III Vmax 3.7 m/s MG 32 mmhg DVI VTI 0.36 EOAi 0.6 cm 2 /m 2 AT 97 ms Severe paravalvular AR HEA270759

Other causes of increased AVR gradient - obstruction, AVR malfunction F 38 yrs Mosaic 23, NYHA II Vmax 3.7 m/s MG 33 mmhg DVI VTI 0.27 EOAi 0.6 cm 2 /m 2 AT 120 ms Significant bio-prosthesis stenosis AEB160471

Characteristics of PPM induced high AVR gradient Smaller AVR and/or larger BSA High gradient early after AVR Sustained gradients over years Normal DVI and AT EOA within reference range Normal fluoroscopy

Prevention of PPM problems Pre-operative Identify LVOT/BSA discrepancy Identify reduced LV function Select AVR prosthesis: Ideally EOA > 0.9 cm 2 x BSA Per-operative Maximize AVR EOA If PPM is likely: consider stentless bioprosthesis, aortic root enlargement, xeno- or homografts Post-operative Early baseline echocardiography

When to re-operate in AVR PPM Severe PPM (EOAi < 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ) Significant daily life symptoms Dyspnea/fatigue Anginous chest pain Syncope Technical availability Risk vs. benefit consideration

In summary, PPM Is prevalent after AVR Impairs symptomatic improvement and survival after AVR May be prevented by pre- and peroperative considerations Re-op. indicated in selected patients

Reasons for over-estimating PPM High flow situation Febrilia, anemia, hyperthyroidism, etc Pressure recovery Small ascending aortic diameter (<3.0 cm) Central jet in bileaflet AVR Technical Contamination of AVR signal by MR signal Erroneous overtracing of Doppler signal Angle correction of Doppler

Reasons for underestimating PPM Low-flow situation Technical: Angle deviation > 20 degrees

Systematic evaluation of elevated AVR gradient Zoghbi WA et al JASE 2009;22:975

Bach D JACC img 2010