The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND The goal of this study was to determine the relationship of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with long-term survival and to assess whether growing concern about PPM has resulted in a decreased incidence over time. METHODS Using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, we identified 59,779 patients ≥65 years old who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) between 2004 and 2014. The degree of PPM was calculated using literature-derived effective orifice areas for commonly used valves. Outcomes to 10 years were stratified by degree of PPM. RESULTS The distribution of PPM was as follows: 35%, none (n = 21,053); 54%, moderate (n = 32,243); and 11%, severe (n = 6,483). Compared with patients with no PPM, patients with moderate or severe PPM had a significantly increased risk of readmission for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.21; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.48) and redo AVR (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.77; HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.56) for moderate or severe PPM, respectively. Survival was significantly worse for any degree of PPM (moderate to none: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.12; severe to none: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.39), with 10-year adjusted survival rates of 46%, 43%, and 35% for none, moderate, and severe, respectively (p < 0.001). The incidence of severe PPM decreased by 55% over the study period, from 13.8% in 2004 to 6.2% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS Any degree of PPM significantly decreased long-term survival and increased readmission rates for both heart failure and reoperation for AVR. Temporal trends show a significant decrease in the incidence of PPM over the past decade.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease
Vahanian, A., Beyersdorf, F., Praz, F., Milojevic, M., Baldus, S., Bauersachs, J., Capodanno, D., Conradi, L., De Bonis, M., De Paulis, R., et al. (2022) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395 · Cited by 5,685
Vahanian, A., Beyersdorf, F., Praz, F., Milojevic, M., Baldus, S., Bauersachs, J., Capodanno, D., Conradi, L., De Bonis, M., De Paulis, R., et al. (2022) · Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.rec.2022.05.006 · Cited by 527
Prosthesis–Patient Mismatch in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Herrmann, H. C., Daneshvar, S. A., Fonarow, G. C., Stebbins, A., Vemulapalli, S., Desai, N. D., Malenka, D. J., Thourani, V. H., Rymer, J., & Kosinski, A. S. (2018) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.001 · Cited by 336
Self-citationSpringhetti, P., Abdoun, K., & Clavel, M.-A. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13144237 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Fallon, J. M., DeSimone, J. P., Brennan, J. M., O’Brien, S., Thibault, D. P., DiScipio, A. W., Pibarot, P., Jacobs, J. P., & Malenka, D. J.
- Venue
- The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-22
- ISSN
- 0003-4975 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2795828155
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.090
- The paper
- Fallon, J. M., DeSimone, J. P., Brennan, J. M., O’Brien, S., Thibault, D. P., DiScipio, A. W., Pibarot, P., Jacobs, J. P., & Malenka, D. J. (2018). The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.090
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.