Aortic valve replacement using interrupted pledgeted non everting suture technique versus simple suture technique in small aortic annulus, does it influence patient prosthetic mismatch


  • Ankur Kothari Department of CVTS, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Uday E. Jadhav Department of CVTS, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India



Small aortic root, PPM, Simple suture technique, Pledgeted suture technique


Background: This study aims at comparing post-op outcome and incidence of patient prosthetic mismatch (PPM) post aortic valve replacement (AVR) using pledgeted versus simple suture technique in isolated aortic stenosis patients with small aortic annulus undergoing AVR with 18-21 mm mechanical bi-leaflet valve in Indian population.

Methods: A retrospective study, conducted in KEM Hospital, Mumbai in patients who underwent AVR between January 2015 to December 2018. Pre-operative data and 1-year post-op hemodynamic data of patients undergoing AVR using interrupted non everting pledgeted and interrupted simple suture technique were compared.

Results: 68 patients were selected for study after applying exclusion criteria (pledgeted 44, simple 24). Both groups were comparable in terms of age (p=0.46), sex (p=0.41), and valve pathologies. Incidence of severe PPM was higher in pledgeted group in patients with valve size 18-19 mm (p=0.20) but similar in valve size 20-21 mm group (p=0.30). Patients with severe and moderate PPM had poor post-operative LV function.

Conclusions: PPM is a common and alterable entity. Severe PPM is responsible for adverse hemodynamic function and congestive heart failure among patients with small sized aortic valve implantation (18-21 mm). Use of simple suture technique had a slight benefit over pledgeted technique in reducing incidence of severe PPM (not statistically significant) and better recuperation during short term follow up.


Sahu AK, Sagar P, Khanna R. Etiology and distribution of isolated aortic stenosis in Indian patients – A study from a large tertiary care hospital in north India. Indian Heart J. 2020;72:272-7.

Rajendran HSR, Seshayyan S, Viktor A, Rajapandian G. Aortic valve annular dimension in Indian population. JCDR. 2013;7(9):1842-5.

Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20-4.

Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131-41.

Tabata M, Shibayama K, Watanabe H, Sato Y, Fukui T, Takanashi S. Simple interrupted suturing increases valve performance after aortic valve replacement with a small supra-annular bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(1):321-5.

Ugur M, Byrne JG, Bavaria JE, Cheung A, Petracek M, Groh MA, et al. Suture technique does not affect hemodynamic performance of the small supra-annular Trifecta bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(4):1347-51.

Kim HH, Lee S, Joo HC, Kim JH, Youn YN, Yoo KJ, Lee SH. Impact of Suture Techniques for Aortic Valve Replacement on Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(3):661-7.

Kim SH, Kim HJ, Kim JB, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Chung CH, et al. Supra-annular vs intra-annular prostheses in aortic valve replacement: impact on hemodynamics and clinical outcome. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28:58-64.

Guenzinger R, Eichinger WB, Hettich I, Bleiziffer S, Ruzicka D, Bauernschmitt R, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of the Medtronic Advantage Supra and St Jude Medical Regent mechanical heart valves in the aortic position: is there an additional benefit of supra annular valve positioning? J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:462-71.

Sievers HH. Prosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:961-5.

Petracek MR. Assessing options for small aortic root. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11(1):S50-5.

Milano AD, De Carlo M, Mecozzi G, D’Alfonso A, Scioti G, Nardi C, Bortolotti U. Clinical outcome in patients with 19-mm and 21-mm St Jude aortic prostheses: comparison at long-term follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:37-43.

Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, Jamieson WRE, Birkmeyer NJ, Lemmer JH Jr, Miller DC, et al. Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:783-92.

Lauer MS, Blackstone EH, Young JB, Topol EJ. Cause of death in clinical research: time for a reassessment? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:618-20.

Chafizadeh ER, Zoghbi WA. Doppler echocardiographic assessment of the St Jude Medical prosthetic valve in the aortic position using the continuity equation. Circulation. 1991;83:213-23.

Ling LH, Enriquez-Sarano M, Seward JB, Tajik AJ, Schaff HV, Bailey KR, et al. Clinical outcome of mitral regurgitation due to flail leaflet. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1417-23.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-83.

Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983-8.

Ruel M, Rubens FD, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Bedard P, Hendry PJ, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:149-59.

Rajappan K, Rimoldi O, Camici PG. Factors influencing coronary microcirculatory function in patients with aortic stenosis after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2002;106:II640.

Nozohoor S, Nilsson J, Lührs C, Roijer A, Sjögren J. The influence of patient-prosthesis mismatch on in-hospital complications and early mortality after aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2007;16:475-82.

Vaquero DH, Llosa JC, Díaz R, Khalpey Z, Morales C, Álvarez R, et al. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on 30-day outcomes in young and middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;7:46.

Nair SK, Bhatnagar G, Valencia O, Chandrasekaran V. Effect of valve suture technique on incidence of paraprosthetic regurgitation and 10 year survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1171-9.

Englberger L, Schaff HV, Jamieson WR, Kennard ED, Im KA, Holubkov R, et al. AVERT investigators. Importance of implant technique on risk of major paravalvular leak (PVL) after St. Jude mechanical heart valve replacement: a report from the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;28:838-43.

Quicai H, Zili C, Zhengfu H, Weiming Z, Zhoumiao C, Dingsheng Y, et al. Continuous-suture technique in aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2006;21:178-81.

Watanabe G, Ushijima T, Tomita S, Yamaguchi S, Koshida Y, Lino K. Revival of continuous suture technique in aortic valve replacement in patient with aortic valve stenosis: a novel modified technique. Innovations (Phila). 2011;6:311-5.

Cleland J. A universally applicable continuous suture technique for insertion of aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 1975;19:719-24.

Doty DB, Nelson RM. Aortic valve replacement: continuous-suture technique. J Card Surg. 1986;1:379-82.

Castro LJ, Arcidi JM Jr, Fisher AL, Gaudiani VA. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:31-6.






Original Research Articles