Limitations of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis of pannus formation in prosthetic aortic valve and review of the literature

Table 1 Characteristics of the different series that assessed the presence of pannus n (%)

Ref.	Year	Total number/No. of re-interventions	Pannus(n)	Location of pannus			Type of valve affected		Time tore-intervention (mo)	Follow-up (yr)
				Aortic	Mitral	Combined	Biologic	Mechanical
Vitale et al[5]	1997	1878/87	66	0 (0)	66 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	66 (100)	51.5 ± 41.41	0.26-20.1
Deviri et al[9]	1998	ND/100	51	ND	ND	ND	0 (0)	51 (100)	48 (1.5-144)1	13
Barbetseas et al[4]	1998	ND/23	10	7 (70)	3 (30)	0 (0)	0 (0)	23 (100)	178 ± 522	ND
Rizzoli et al[3]	1999	2680/334	44	13 (30)	27 (61)	4 (9)	0 (0)	44 (100)	1563	27
Girard et al[18]	2001	ND/92	27	27 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (4)	26 (96)	Vmec 156 ± 983	ND
									Vbio 84 ± 483
Roudaut et al[10]	2003	17250/126	26	ND	ND	ND	0 (0)	26 (100)	ND	23
Teshima et al[2]	2003	615/12	12	12 (100)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	12 (100)	83 ± 522	19
Toker et al[19]	2006	63	45	ND	ND	ND	0 (0)	45 (100)	58.9 ± 56.11	ND

¹Patients with a diagnosis of obstructive prosthetic dysfunction;

²Patients with a diagnosis of pannus alone;

³Patients with obstructive or non-obstructive prosthetic dysfunction. ND: No data; Vmec: Mechanical valve; Vbio: Biologic valve.