Velders, Bart J.J.

Abstract A recent discussion that highlighted the differences between the reported effective orifice area and corresponding incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch within the 1- and 7-year results of the PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt (PERIGON) Trial of the Avalus valve has once again emphasized the instability of such measurements. The effective orifice area, calculated using the continuity equation through measurements of the left ventricular outflow tract diameter, is highly susceptible to measurement variability, as previously demonstrated in literature through both intra- and interobserver variability. To illustrate this problem, a simulation was performed in which the left ventricular outflow tract diameter was systematically altered by −2 mm, −1 mm, 0 mm, +1 mm, and +2 mm. Subsequently, the proportion of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was recalculated and varied between 13.3%, 6.2%, 3.1% (original), 1.2%, and 0.3%, respectively. These findings demonstrate that small but clinically realistic variability in left ventricular outflow tract measurements can significantly affect the presence of prosthesis-patient mismatch. A measurement variability of 1 mm can nearly double or halve the prevalence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. This illustrates that prosthesis-patient mismatch, in its current form, is highly unstable and that indexed effective orifice area-based prosthesis-patient mismatch should not be used in isolation.

Objective To describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods Patients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new stented bioprosthesis at 25 centres in North America (Canada and the USA) and 13 centres in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Switzerland and Italy). While all patients underwent implantation with the same bioprosthetic model, perioperative management was left to the discretion of participating centres. Perioperative care was described in detail including outcomes up to 1-year follow-up. Results Among 1118 patients, 643 (58%) were implanted in North America, and 475 (42%) were implanted in Europe. Patients in Europe were older, had a lower body mass index, less bicuspid disease and worse degree of aortic stenosis at baseline. In Europe, anticoagulant therapy at discharge was more aggressive, whereas length of stay was longer, and discharges directly to home were less common. Rehospitalisation risk was lower in Europe at 30 days (8.5% vs 15.9%) but converged at 1-year follow-up (26.5% vs 28.1%). Within continents, there were major differences between individual countries concerning perioperative management. Conclusion Contemporary perioperative management of SAVR patients varies between North America and Europe in patient selection, procedural techniques, antithrombotic regimen and discharge management. Furthermore, rehospitalisation differed largely between continents and countries. Hence, geographical setting must be considered during design and interpretation of trials on SAVR. Trial registration number NCT02088554.