OBJECTIVE: We report the long-term results of left ventricular surgical restoration in which 2 different strategies were used, which had restoration of ventricular volume or ventricular shape as their target. METHODS: From 1988 to 2008, 308 patients with anterior scars underwent elective left ventricular surgical restoration. Before 2002, a Dor procedure was performed in 107 cases to reduce left ventricular volume (group V); from 1998 to 2001, a Guilmet procedure was performed in 32 patients to rebuild a left ventricular conical shape (group S). From 2002, 169 patients (group S) underwent left ventricular surgical restoration to reshape a conical left ventricle by means of the Dor procedure (n = 29, septoapical scars) or septal reshaping (n = 140, when the septum was more involved than the anterior wall). The 2 groups were similar for all features but age, mitral regurgitation grade, mitral valve surgery rate (higher in group S), and ejection fraction (higher in group V). RESULTS: Early mortality was 7.8% (11.2% in group V vs 6.0% in group S, P = .102). Logistic regression showed that volume reduction was significantly related to higher early mortality. Five-year cardiac survival, cardiac event-free survival, and event-free survival were higher in group S. Cox analysis showed that the choice of volume reduction provided lower survival (hazard ratio, 2.1), cardiac survival (hazard ratio, 3.0), cardiac event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.7), and event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.2). When 30-day events were excluded, volume reduction was still a risk factor for cardiac event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: When the main target of left ventricular surgical restoration is left ventricular reshaping rather than left ventricular volume reduction, early and late outcomes seem to improve. 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We report the long-term results of left ventricular surgical restoration in which 2 different strategies were used, which had restoration of ventricular volume or ventricular shape as their target. METHODS: From 1988 to 2008, 308 patients with anterior scars underwent elective left ventricular surgical restoration. Before 2002, a Dor procedure was performed in 107 cases to reduce left ventricular volume (group V); from 1998 to 2001, a Guilmet procedure was performed in 32 patients to rebuild a left ventricular conical shape (group S). From 2002, 169 patients (group S) underwent left ventricular surgical restoration to reshape a conical left ventricle by means of the Dor procedure (n = 29, septoapical scars) or septal reshaping (n = 140, when the septum was more involved than the anterior wall). The 2 groups were similar for all features but age, mitral regurgitation grade, mitral valve surgery rate (higher in group S), and ejection fraction (higher in group V). RESULTS: Early mortality was 7.8% (11.2% in group V vs 6.0% in group S, P = .102). Logistic regression showed that volume reduction was significantly related to higher early mortality. Five-year cardiac survival, cardiac event-free survival, and event-free survival were higher in group S. Cox analysis showed that the choice of volume reduction provided lower survival (hazard ratio, 2.1), cardiac survival (hazard ratio, 3.0), cardiac event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.7), and event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.2). When 30-day events were excluded, volume reduction was still a risk factor for cardiac event-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.2). CONCLUSIONS: When the main target of left ventricular surgical restoration is left ventricular reshaping rather than left ventricular volume reduction, early and late outcomes seem to improve. 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.