Impact of valve size, predicted effective and indexed effective orifice area after aortic valve replacement

Introduction: The impact of manufacturer labeled prosthesis size and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement is not clear although indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) has been associated with worse survival. Methods: Data was retrospectively collected from Jan 2000–Dec 2019 for prosthesis type, model, and size for isolated aortic valve replacements. Stratified survival was compared between groups and subgroups for labeled valve size, EOA and predicted patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Results: A total of 3444 patients were included. Moderate and severe PPM was 15.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Cumulative lifetime hazard was worse for biological valves (mortality: biological 77.7% vs. mechanical 64.8%, p =.001). Moderate prosthetic aortic stenosis (AS), (EOA = 1–1.5 cm2) was 12.1% and severe prosthetic AS (EOA ≤ 1 cm2) was 0.8%, respectively. Survival was 10.5 ± 0.4 years with moderate to severe prosthetic AS (EOA≤1.5 cm2) versus 12.6 ± 0.2 years with mild to no prosthetic AS (EOA>1.5 cm2), p =.001. Worse survival in the presence of moderate-severe prosthetic AS was seen with biological valves (9.7 ± 0.4 years vs. 11.2 ± 0.2 years, p =.001 for EOA≤1.5, >1.5 cm2, respectively). Moderate to severe PPM was associated with worse survival (11.1 ± 0.4 years for iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2 vs. 12.5 ± 0.2 years with iEOA > 0.85 cm2/m2, p =.001). Moderate to severe PPM predicted worse long term survival (hazard ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.37–9.25; p =.009). Conclusion: Predicted prosthetic moderate to severe AS and moderate to severe PPM adversely affect long term survival. Smaller valves are associated with reduced survival.