Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on February 1, 2006
European Heart Journal 2006 27(6):644-646; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi757
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/6/644    most recent
ehi757v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taggart, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Taggart, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Prosthesis patient mismatch in aortic valve replacement: possible but pertinent?

David P. Taggart*

Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Received 4 October 2005; revised 6 January 2006; accepted 12 January 2006; online publish-ahead-of-print 1 February 2006.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: david.taggart@orh.nhs.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is now the second most commonly performed cardiac operation and with an increasingly elderly population, the number of such procedures will inevitably continue to grow.1 In 1978, Rahimtoola2 defined the term prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) to describe the situation in which the effective orifice area (EOA) of a prosthetic valve, after implantation, is smaller than that of the native valve. Although described nearly three decades ago, there are several reasons why PPM has only more recently become much more openly debated. First, PPM was initially overshadowed by the more immediate issues of operative mortality and major morbidity. Second, by definition, all prosthetic valves must therefore have at least some degree of PPM; over 90% of AVR still use prostheses with a sewing ring, or have struts, hinge mechanisms, and rigid carbon or relatively stiff bioprosthetic leaflets. Third, and most importantly, as moderate aortic stenosis . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Four crucial considerations regarding PPM and outcome

PPM and short-term survival following AVR

PPM and cardiac failure following AVR

PPM and long-term survival following AVR

PPM and functional recovery after AVR

Surgical options and risks for avoiding PPM

Summary and conclusions


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
J.-L. Monin, M. Monchi, M. E.W. Kirsch, H. Petit-Eisenmann, S. Baleynaud, C. Chauvel, D. Metz, C. Adams, J.-P. Quere, P. Gueret, et al.
Low-gradient aortic stenosis: impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival
Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2007; 28(21): 2620 - 2626.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]