Background: The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on the clinical outcome following aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial. This study compared the surgical outcomes of AVR between patients with a patient-prosthesis mismatch and those having undergone an aortic annular enlargement. Material and Method: Six hundred and twenty seven adult patients, who underwent AVR with stented bioprosthetic or mechanical valves, between January 1996 and February 2006, were evaluated. PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) ≤0.85 cm2/m2, and severe if the iEOA ≤0.65 cm2/m2. PPM was present in 103 (16.4%, PPM group) patients, and severe in 11 (1.8%, SPPM group). During the period of the study, 21 patients underwent an AVR with annular enlargement (AE group). Result: The mean iEOA of the AE group was larger than that of the PPM group (0.95 vs. 0.76 cm2/m2, p=0.00). The AE group had longer CPB, ACC and operation times than the PPM group, and showed a tendency toward higher operative mortality (14.3% vs. 2.9%, p=0.06). The SPPM group had higher AV pressure gradients (peak/mean) than the AE group (72/45 mmHg vs. 38/25 mmHg, p=0.02/0.06) and suffered more AV related events (AV reoperation or severe aortic stenosis)(45.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.03). LV masses were not regressed in the patients who experienced an AV related event. Conclusion: During AVR in patients with a small aortic annulus, annular enlargement should be carefully applied taking into account the high risk of operative mortality due to annular enlargement and co-morbidities of patients. Aortic annular enlargement; however, should be considered as an alternative method in patients expected to have a severe PPM after an AVR.

Keywords: Aortic valve, surgery, Prosthesis, Annuloplasty, aortic valve