<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="ru" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2687-0940</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Challenges in modern medicine</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2687-0940</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.52575/2687-0940-2024-47-4-514-531</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">222</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>SURGERY</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>&lt;strong&gt;Mechanical Prostheses in Adults with an Aortic Ring Size of 17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;ndash;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21 mm with and without Posterior Aortoplasty&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp;</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>&lt;strong&gt;Mechanical Prostheses in Adults with an Aortic Ring Size of 17&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;ndash;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;21 mm with and without Posterior Aortoplasty&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;nbsp;</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Sazonenkov</surname><given-names>Maksim A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Sazonenkov</surname><given-names>Maksim A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>sazonenkov@mail.ru</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Tatarintsev</surname><given-names>Andrey M.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Tatarintsev</surname><given-names>Andrey M.</given-names></name></name-alternatives></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Moskalev</surname><given-names>Andrey S.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Moskalev</surname><given-names>Andrey S.</given-names></name></name-alternatives></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Ismatov</surname><given-names>Hushbahtdzhon H.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Ismatov</surname><given-names>Hushbahtdzhon H.</given-names></name></name-alternatives></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Klimenko</surname><given-names>Ludmila S.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Klimenko</surname><given-names>Ludmila S.</given-names></name></name-alternatives></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Moskaleva</surname><given-names>Darya D.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Moskaleva</surname><given-names>Darya D.</given-names></name></name-alternatives></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>47</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>0</fpage><lpage>0</lpage><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="/media/journal-medicine/2024/4/АПМ_2024_Том_474_514-531.pdf" /><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Introduction. The larger size of the implanted prosthesis provides more favorable conditions for systolic function and more complete regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. In some cases, this can only ensure expansion of the left ventricular outflow tract with a patch. Aim. To compare the immediate results between a group with an isolated mechanical valve replacement inserted into a narrow aortic annulus and a group with a posterior aortoplasty that accommodated a larger mechanical valve. The reasonable proportion of posterior aortoplasty for a narrow ring is 20&amp;ndash;30 % of cases. Materials and methods. In 2015&amp;ndash;2023, 78 adult patients with a narrow aortic ring (17&amp;ndash;21 mm) underwent aortic valve replacement. The isolated prosthetic group consisted of 56 patients, the group with posterior aortoplasty consisted of 22 cases. Results. In the immediate postoperative period, the group with posterior aortoplasty had advantages in: Rashimtoola S.H. index (1,34 &amp;plusmn; 0,2 versus 1,06&amp;nbsp;&amp;plusmn;&amp;nbsp;0,14 см2/м2), significantly lower peak pressure gradient (20,77 &amp;plusmn; 6,61 versus 29,33 &amp;plusmn; 8,2 mm Hg), mean pressure gradient (10,61 &amp;plusmn; 3,23 versus 14,93 &amp;plusmn; 4,29 mm Hg) on the prostheses, and left ventricular stroke volume index (29,0 &amp;plusmn; 6,56 versus 28,85 &amp;plusmn; 7,81 мл/м2). Conclusions. The use of aortoplasty gives better hemodynamic results. The reasonable proportion of posterior aortoplasty for a narrow aortic ring is 28.2 % of cases.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Introduction. The larger size of the implanted prosthesis provides more favorable conditions for systolic function and more complete regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. In some cases, this can only ensure expansion of the left ventricular outflow tract with a patch. Aim. To compare the immediate results between a group with an isolated mechanical valve replacement inserted into a narrow aortic annulus and a group with a posterior aortoplasty that accommodated a larger mechanical valve. The reasonable proportion of posterior aortoplasty for a narrow ring is 20&amp;ndash;30 % of cases. Materials and methods. In 2015&amp;ndash;2023, 78 adult patients with a narrow aortic ring (17&amp;ndash;21 mm) underwent aortic valve replacement. The isolated prosthetic group consisted of 56 patients, the group with posterior aortoplasty consisted of 22 cases. Results. In the immediate postoperative period, the group with posterior aortoplasty had advantages in: Rashimtoola S.H. index (1,34 &amp;plusmn; 0,2 versus 1,06&amp;nbsp;&amp;plusmn;&amp;nbsp;0,14 см2/м2), significantly lower peak pressure gradient (20,77 &amp;plusmn; 6,61 versus 29,33 &amp;plusmn; 8,2 mm Hg), mean pressure gradient (10,61 &amp;plusmn; 3,23 versus 14,93 &amp;plusmn; 4,29 mm Hg) on the prostheses, and left ventricular stroke volume index (29,0 &amp;plusmn; 6,56 versus 28,85 &amp;plusmn; 7,81 мл/м2). Conclusions. The use of aortoplasty gives better hemodynamic results. The reasonable proportion of posterior aortoplasty for a narrow aortic ring is 28.2 % of cases.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>aortic root anatomy</kwd><kwd>posterior aortoplasty in adults</kwd><kwd>aortic valve replacement</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>aortic root anatomy</kwd><kwd>posterior aortoplasty in adults</kwd><kwd>aortic valve replacement</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ack><p>The work was carried out without external sources of funding</p></ack><ref-list><title>Список литературы</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation>Assotsiatsiya serdechno-sosudistykh khirurgov Rossii. 2021. Vserossiyskoe nauchnoe obshchestvo kardiologov. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii po vedeniy, diagnostike i lecheniyu klapannykh porokov serdtsa [Clinical Recommendations for the Management, Diagnosis and Treatment of Valvular Heart Defects]. Moscow.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation>Bogachev-Prokofiev A.V., Karaskov A.M., Sapegin A.V. 2017. Sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya kardiokhirurgicheskoy pomoshchi v Sibirskom federal&amp;#39;nom okruge [Status and Prospects for the Development of Cardiac Surgical Care in the Siberian Federal District]. // Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya. V. 21, No. 4.&amp;ndash; P. 13&amp;ndash;18. doi: 10.21688-1681-3472-2017-4-13-18</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>Aitaliyev S., Rumbinaitė E., Mėlinytė-Ankudavičė K., Nekro&amp;scaron;ius R., Keturakis V., Benetis R. 2022. Early Outcomes of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Following Aortic Valve Replacement. Perfusion. Oct. 37(7): 692&amp;ndash;699. doi:10.1177/02676591211023286.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation>Allen K.B., Chhatriwalla A.K., Saxon J.T., Cohen D.J., Nguyen T.C., Webb J., Loyalka P., Bavry A.A., Rovin&amp;nbsp;J.D., Whisenant B., Dvir D., Kennedy K.F., Thourani V., Lee R. 2019. Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture: Technical Insights from a Multicenter Study. Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Investigators. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. Nov;158(5): 1317&amp;ndash;1328. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.073.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation>Andronesi A.G., Camburu G., Diaconu C.C., Iliuta L., Panaitescu E. 2022. Additional Prognostic Value of Tissue Doppler Evaluation in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Left-Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement. Medicina (Kaunas). Oct 7; 58(10): 1410. doi: 10.3390/medicina 58101410.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation>Bahlmann E., Einarsen E., Cramariuc D., Midtb&amp;oslash; H., Mancusi C., Rosseb&amp;oslash; A., Willems S., Gerdts E. 2021. Low Myocardial Energetic Efficiency is Associated with Increased Mortality in Aortic Stenosis. Open Heart. Aug; 8(2): e001720. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001720.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation>Blasi S., Ravenni G., Celiento M., De Martino A., Milano A.D., Bortolotti U. 2020. Durability of the Mitroflow Pericardial Prosthesis; Influence of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and New Anticalcification Treatment. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.; 68: 131&amp;ndash;40. Antunes M.J.. Aortic Root Enlargement, Again and Again. The Thoracic and Cardiovascular surgeon, 2021 Feb;161(2): e158-e159. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.10.143.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation>Chan J., Dimagli A., Fudulu D.P., Sinha S., Narayan P., Dong T., Angelini G.D. 2023. Trend and Early Outcomes in Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. Jan 9; 9: 1077279. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1077279.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation>Le&amp;oacute;n Del Pino, Ru&amp;iacute;z Ortiz M., Delgado Ortega M., S&amp;aacute;nchez Fern&amp;aacute;ndez J., Ferreiro Quero C., Dur&amp;aacute;n Jim&amp;eacute;nez&amp;nbsp;E., Romero Moreno M., Segura Saint-Gerons J., Ojeda Pineda S., Pan &amp;Aacute;lvarez-Ossorio M., Mesa Rubio D. 2019. Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Prevalence and Medium Term Prognostic Impact. Int. J. Cardiovasc. Imaging. May;35(5): 827&amp;ndash;836. doi: 10.1007/s10554-018-01519-z.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation>Fallon J.M., DeSimone J.P., Brennan J.M., Sean O&amp;#39;Brien, Dylan P. Thibault, Anthony W. DiScipio, Philippe Pibarot, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, David J. Malenka. 2018. The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 106: 14&amp;ndash;22. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.090</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation>Iqbal A., Panicker V.T., Karunakaran J. 2019. Patient Prosthesis Mismatch and its Impact on Left Ventricular Regression Following Aortic Valve Replacement in Aortic Stenosis Patients. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 35, 6&amp;ndash;14. doi: 10.1007/s12055-018-0706-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation>Kindo M., Minh T.H., Perrier S., Petit-Eisenmann H., Bentz J., Cristinar M., Gharib Ajob, Collange O., Jean-Philippe Mazzucotelli. 2017. Impact of Prosthesispatient Mismatch on Early Haemodynamic Status after Aortic Valve Replacement. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 24: 48&amp;ndash;54. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivw303.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation>Li S., Perry A.S. 2021. Optimal Threshold of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction for Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis / AS. Perry, S. Li// Journal of the American Heart Association V 10, № 7. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020252.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation>Micali L.R., Algargoosh S., Parise O., Parise G., Matteucci F., de Jong M., Moula A.I., Tetta C., Gelsomino&amp;nbsp;S. 2021. Patient Survival in Severe Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis after Aortic Valve Replacement or Conservative Management. J. Card. Surg. Mar; 36(3): 1030&amp;ndash;1039. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15209.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation>Nishimura Rick A., Catherine M. Otto, Robert O. Bonow, Blase A. Carabello, John P. Erwin 3rd, Federico Gentile, Hani Jneid, Eric V. Krieger, Michael Mack, Christopher McLeod, Patrick T O&amp;#39;Gara, Vera H. Rigolin, Thoralf M. Sundt 3rd, Annemarie Thompson, Christopher Toly; ACC/AHA Joint Committee Members; Patrick T. O&amp;#39;Gara, Joshua A. Beckman, Glenn N. Levine, Sana M. Al-Khatib, Anastasia Armbruster, Kim K. Birtcher, Joaquin Ciggaroa, Anita Deswal, Dave L. Dixon, Lee A. Fleisher, Lisa de las Fuentes, Federico Gentile, Zachary D. Goldberger, Bulent Gorenek, Norrisa Haynes, Adrian F. Hernandez, Mark A. Hlatky, Jos&amp;eacute; A. Joglar, W. Schuyler Jones, Joseph E. Marine, Daniel Mark, Latha Palaniappan, Mariann R. Piano, Erica S. Spatz, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Y. Joseph Woo 2020. AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation.135: e1159-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.04.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation>Pibarot P., Magne J., Leipsic J., C&amp;ocirc;t&amp;eacute; N., Blanke P., Thourani V.H., Hahn R. 2019. Imaging for Predicting and Assessing Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 12(1): 149&amp;ndash;162. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation>Prendergast B., Vahanian A. 2021. The 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the Management of Valvular Heart Disease: A New Template for Heart Teams&amp;nbsp;and Their Patients. Cardiovasc. Res. 2022 Jan 7; 118(1): e11-e13. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvab362.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation>Rashimtoola S.H. The Problem of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch. Circulation. 1978.58: 20&amp;ndash;24. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.1.20</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation>S&amp;aacute; M.P., Zhigalov K., Cavalcanti L.R.P., Neto A.C.E., Rayol S.C., Weymann A., Ruhparwar A., Lima R.C. 2021. Impact of Aortic Annulus Enlargement on the Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis. Seminars in thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 33(2): 316&amp;ndash;325. doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.06.046.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation>Srimurugan B., Krishna N., Jose R., Gopal K., Varma P.K. 2022. Aortic Root Widening: &amp;quot;pro et contra&amp;quot;. Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Apr; 38 (Suppl 1): 91&amp;ndash;100. doi: 10.1007/s12055-020-01125-6.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation>http://www.medeng.ru/;https://www.medtronic.com/;https://www.onxlti.com/;https://www.cardiovascular.abbott/</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>