Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement in rheumatic population: Does mitral position prosthesis-patient mismatch really exist?

BACKGROUND: Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is characterised by the effects of inadequate prosthesis size relative to body surface area (BSA).The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of PPM on late clinical outcomes after mitral valve replacement (MVR) in rheumatic population. METHODS: From 2000 to 2013, a total of 445 patients (mean age 54.2 ± 11.7 years) underwent isolated MVR (±tricuspid annuloplasty) for rheumatic disease were investigated. Effective orifice area (EOA) was determined by the continuity equation and PPM was defined as indexed EOA (EOA/BSA) ≤ 1.2 cm(2)/m(2). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up (mean follow up 8.7 ± 4.0 years) results were compared. RESULTS: 37% of patients (n = 165) had PPM. There were no significant differences in baseline and operative characteristics between patients with and without PPM except age and IEOA. A significant decrease in mean trans-valvular pressure gradient (MPG) over time following MVR, however the change of MPG showed no differences between groups (No PPM vs. PPM: 8.9 ± 4.7 mmHg → 3.6 ± 1.2 mmHg vs. 8.7 ± 4.5 mmHg → 3.8 ± 1.4 mmHg, p-value = 0.28). In all patients, there was a reduction of left atrium dimension (58.6 ± 12.0 mm → 53.2 ± 12.0 mm vs. 57.9 ± 8.9 mm → 52.2 ± 8.9 mm, p-value = 0.68) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (49.9 ± 5.7 mm → 48.9 ± 5.7 mm vs. 49.7 ± 6.0 mm → 48.3 ± 5.0 mm, p = 0.24) without statistical significance. Freedom from TR progression rates at 3 and 5 years (99% vs.98%, 99% vs. 98%, p-value = 0.1), and overall survival rates at 3 and 5 years (97% vs. 96%, 94% vs. 94%, p-value = 0.7) were similar. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mitral PPM is not associated with atrial /ventricular remodeling and might not influence late clinical outcome including late TR progression, survival in rheumatic population.