Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on early and late outcomes after mitral valve replacement: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Prognostic significance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains uncertain because of the limited studies reporting inconsistent or even contrary results. This meta-analysis pooled results of all available studies comparing early and late prognoses between patients with significant mitral PPM and those without. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching Pubmed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Impact of PPM on postoperative hemodynamic results, thirty-day mortality, overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and primary morbidity after MVR was evaluated via meta-analysis. Robustness of pooled estimates, source of heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed via sensitivity analyses, meta-regression as well as subgroup analysis stratified according to methodological or clinical heterogeneity, or sequential omission method, and funnel plot or Begg's and Egger's tests, respectively. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies involving 9302 individuals (PPM group: n = 5109, Control group: n = 4193) were included for meta-analysis. Total PPM and severe PPM prevalence were 3.8%–85.9% and 1%–27%, with a mean value of 54.9% and 14.1%, respectively. As compared with control group, mitral PPM group demonstrated a poorer postoperative hemodynamic status of higher mean and peak residual transprosthetic pressure gradients (TPG), higher postoperative systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) and less reduction, higher postoperative pulmonary hypertension (PH) prevalence and less PH regression, smaller net atrioventricular compliance, less NYHA class decrease, higher postoperative functional tricuspid regurgitation prevalence and less regression. The PPM group also revealed a higher thirty-day mortality, long-term overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and postoperative congestive heart failure prevalence, which were positively correlated with the severity of PPM if it was classified into tri-level subgroups. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence, and the AF regression were analogous between groups. Most pooled estimates were robust according to sensitivity analyses. Male patients and bioprosthesis implantation proportion were prominent source of between-study heterogeneity on thirty-day mortality. Publication bias was not significant in tests for all the outcomes, except for SPAP and TPG. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral PPM would result in poorer postoperative hemodynamics and worse early and late prognosis. Severe PPM must be avoided since deleterious impact of mitral PPM was severity dependent.