Podsumowanie
Niedopasowanie protezy zastawkowej jest ważnym problemem klinicznym, istotnie wpływającym na rokowanie pacjenta po leczeniu operacyjnym. Zjawisko to można przewidzieć już na etapie kwalifikacji chorego do zabiegu wszczepienia sztucznej zastawki. Znaczącą rolę odgrywa tu badanie echokardiograficzne umożliwiające pomiar pierścienia zastawki natywnej. Wielkość pierścienia zastawki i określenie powierzchni ciała umożliwiają dobór odpowiedniej dla chorego protezy zastawkowej i techniki operacyjnej.
Piśmiennictwo
1. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978; 58: 20-24.
2. Niklewski T, Zembala M, Foremny J, et al. Jak uniknąć problemu niedopasowania wszczepionej sztucznej zastawki aortalnej. Kardiol Pol 2007; 65: 735-739.
3. Hashimoto K. Patient-prosthesis mismatch: the Japanese experience. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 12: 159-165.
4. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 2006; 92: 1022-1029.
5. Pisano C, D’Amico T, Palmeri C, et al. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch: hemodynamic, echocardiographic and clinical consequences. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 13: 606-610.
6. Dumesnil JG, Yoganathan AP. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1992; 6 Suppl 1: S34-37.
7. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009; 22: 975-1014.
8. Sakamoto Y, Hashimoto K, Okuyama H, et al. Validity of identifying patient-prosthesis mismatch from the indexed effective orifice area. J Artif Organs 2008; 11: 163-164.
9. Clavel MA, Rodés-Cabau J, Dumont É, et al. Validation and characterization of transcatheter aortic valve effective orifice area measured by Doppler echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 4: 1053-1062.
10. Garcia D, Kadem L. What do you mean by aortic valve area: geometric orifice area, effective orifice area, or gorlin area? J Heart Valve Dis 2006; 15: 601-608.
11. Apostolakis E, Baikoussis NG, Papakonstantinou NA, Goudevenos J. Patient-prosthesis mismatch and strategies to prevent it during aortic valve replacement. Hellenic J Cardiol 2011; 52: 41-51.
12. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J. Hemodynamic and Clinical Impact of Prosthesis–Patient Mismatch in the Aortic Valve Position and Its Prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1131-1141.
13. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003;108:983-988.
14. Mohty D, Malouf JF, Girard SE, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival in patients with small St Jude Medical mechanical prostheses in the aortic position. Circulation 2006; 113: 420-426.
15. Ruel M, Al-Faleh H, Kulik A, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131: 1036-1044.
16. Kohsaka S, Mohan S, Virani S, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135: 1076-1080.
17. Shi WY, Yap CH, Hayward PA, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement: a multicentre analysis of early outcomes and mid-term survival. Heart 2011; 97: 1074-1081.
18. Li M, Dumesnil JG, Mathieu P, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on pulmonary arterial pressure after mitral valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 1034-1040.
19. Magne J, Mathieu P, Dumesnil JG, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival after mitral valve replacement. Circulation 2007; 115: 1417-1425.
20. Lam BK, Chan V, Hendry P, et al. The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 133: 1464-1473.
21. Matsuura K, Mogi K, Aoki C, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement stratified by referred and measured effective valve area. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 17: 153-159.
22. Giannini C, Petronio AS, Nardi C, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling in percutaneous and surgical aortic bioprostheses: an echocardiographic study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2011; 24: 28-36.
23. Clavel MA, Webb JG, Rodés-Cabau J, et al. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Circulation 2010; 122: 1928-1936.
24. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: an update. Curr Cardiol Rep 2011; 13: 250-257.
25. Tzikas A, Piazza N, Geleijnse ML, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the medtronic CoreValve system in patients with aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2010; 106: 255-260.
17. Jolly SS, Amlani S, Hamon M, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 132-140.
18. Mc Cullough PA. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 1419-1428.
19. Rihal CS, Textor SC, Grill DE, et al. Incidence and prognostic importance of acute renal failure after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2002; 105: 2259-2264.
20. Klein LW, Sheldon MW, Brinker J, et al. The use of radiographic contrast media during PCI: a focused review: a position statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 74: 728-746.
21. Chambers C, Fetterly K, Holzer R, et al. Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 77: 546-556.