Aortic valve replacement: Is valve size important?

Objective: We sought to determine whether aortic prosthesis size adversely influences survival after aortic valve replacement. Methods: A total of 892 adults receiving a mechanical (n = 346), pericardial (n = 463), or allograft (n = 83) valve for aortic stenosis were observed for up to 20 years (mean, 5.0 +/- 3.9 years) after primary isolated aortic valve replacement. We used multivariable propensity scores to adjust for valve selection factors, multivariable hazard function analyses to identify risk factors for all-cause mortality, and bootstrap resampling to quantify the reliability of the results. Results: Twenty-five percent of patients had indexed internal orifice areas of less than 1.5 cm(2)/m(2) and more than 2 SDs (Z-value) below predicted normal aortic valve size. Mechanical valve orifices were smaller(1.3 +/- 0.29 cm(2)/m(2), Z = -2.2 +/- 1.16) than pericardial (1.9 +/- 0.36 cm(2)/m(2), Z = -0.40 +/- 1.01) or allograft valves (2.1 +/- 0.50, Z = 0.24 +/- 1.17). The overall survival was 98%, 96%, 86%, 69%, and 49% at 30 days and 1, 5, 10, and 15 years postoperatively. Univariably, survival was weakly and inversely related to manufacturer valve size (P = .16) and internal orifice diameter (P = .2) but completely unrelated to indexed valve area (P = .6) or Z-value (P = .8). These, and univariable differences among valve types (P = .004), were accounted for by different prevalences in patient risk factors and not by valve size or type per se. Bootstrap resampling indicated that these findings had a less than 15% chance of being incorrect. Conclusions: Survival after aortic valve replacement is strongly related to patient risk factors but appears not to be adversely affected by moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch (down to about 4 SDs below normal). Aortic root enlargement to accommodate a large prosthesis may be required in few situations.