| Literature DB >> 24893928 |
Satoru Wakasa, Suguru Kubota, Yasushige Shingu, Tomonori Ooka, Tsuyoshi Tachibana, Yoshiro Matsui1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since reduction annuloplasty alone for ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) cannot prevent late recurrence of MR or improve survival for those with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, and the surgical approach to this etiology is still controversial, we conducted a study to assess the efficacy of the additional papillary muscle approximation (PMA) procedure for ischemic MR by comparing the different subtypes of PMA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24893928 PMCID: PMC4066289 DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-9-98
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Figure 1Schematic of complete and incomplete papillary muscle approximation procedures.
Patients’ baseline characteristics
| Age, years | 65 ± 8 | 50 ± 14 | 65 ± 10 | 0.024 |
| Male, n (%) | 11 (85%) | 9 (100%) | 18 (78%) | 0.48 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 8 (62%) | 4 (44%) | 7 (30%) | 0.19 |
| Dialysis, n (%) | 2 (15%) | 2 (22%) | 2 (9%) | 0.62 |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 7 (54%) | 4 (44%) | 10 (44%) | 0.92 |
| Atrial fibrillation, n (%) | 2 (15%) | 0 | 4 (17%) | 0.53 |
| History of VT, n (%) | 0 | 1 (11%) | 5 (22%) | 0.21 |
| Coronary lesions, n (%) | | | | |
| Left anterior descending | 12 (92%) | 8 (89%) | 23 (100%) | 0.23 |
| Left circumflex | 12 (92%) | 8 (89%) | 16 (70%) | 0.26 |
| Right | 13 (100%) | 7 (78%) | 18 (78%) | 0.13 |
| NYHA class, n (%) | | | | 0.43 |
| II | 3 (23%) | 2 (22%) | 1 (4%) | |
| III | 6 (46%) | 5 (56%) | 14 (61%) | |
| IV | 4 (31%) | 2 (22%) | 8 (35%) | |
| Inotrope, n (%) | 2 (15%) | 1 (11%) | 3 (13%) | 1.0 |
| Urgent, n (%) | 2 (15%) | 0 | 2 (9%) | 0.65 |
| IABP, n (%) | 2 (15%) | 0 | 6 (26%) | 0.26 |
| PCPS, n (%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (4%) | 1.0 |
PMA = papillary muscle approximation, LVP = left ventriculoplasty, VT = ventricular tachyarrhythmia, NYHA = New York Heart Association, IABP = intraaortic balloon pumping, PCPS = percutaneous cardiopulmonary support.
Operative procedures
| Mitral annuloplasty, n (%) | 13 (100%) | 9 (100%) | 23 (100%) | N/A |
| Ring size, n (%) | | | | 0.30 |
| 24 mm | 0 | 0 | 1 (4%) | |
| 26 mm | 6 (46%) | 6 (67%) | 17 (74%) | |
| 28 mm | 6 (46%) | 3 (33%) | 3 (13%) | |
| 30 mm | 1 (8%) | 0 | 2 (9%) | |
| PMA, n (%) | | | | <0.001 |
| Complete PMA | 0 | 9 (100%) | 23 (100%) | |
| Incomplete PMA | 13 (100%) | 0 | 0 | |
| PM suspension, n (%) | | | | 0.29 |
| None | 5 (39%) | 3 (33%) | 15 (65%) | |
| Anterior | 6 (46%) | 3 (33%) | 5 (22%) | |
| Posterior | 2 (15%) | 3 (33%) | 3 (13%) | |
| Overlapping left ventriculoplasty, n (%) | 0 | 0 | 23 (100%) | <0.001 |
| CABG, n (%) | 13 (100%) | 8 (89%) | 20 (87%) | 0.41 |
| TAP, n (%) | 9 (75%) | 4 (44%) | 17 (74%) | 0.34 |
| Maze, n (%) | 1 (8%) | 0 | 2 (9%) | 1.0 |
PMA = papillary muscle approximation, LVP = left ventriculoplasty, PM = papillary muscles, CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting, AVR = aortic valve replacement, TAP = tricuspid annuloplasty, AVR = aortic valve replacement.
Perioperative cardiac sizes and functions
| | | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative values | | | | | | |
| LVDd, mm | 66±5 | 65±5 | 68±7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.64 |
| LVDs, mm | 55±7 | 57±6 | 58±8 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 1.0 |
| LVESVI, ml/m2 | 95±24 | 112±26 | 117±46 | 0.74 | 0.50 | 1.0 |
| LVEF, % | 35±9 | 28±4 | 27±10 | 0.05 | 0.039 | 0.84 |
| MR grade | 2.8±1.0 | 2.9±1.1 | 2.8±1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| DCT, ms | 208±71 | 159±47 | 151±44 | 0.39 | 0.09 | 1.0 |
| IPMD, mm | 31±7 | 28±4 | 29±5 | 0.71 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| CH (2CV), mm | 11±2 | 9±2 | 10±2 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 1.0 |
| CH (4CV), mm | 9±2 | 10±3 | 10±2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Postoperative values | | | | | | |
| LVDd, mm | 57±6** | 58±4** | 63±8** | 1.0 | 0.06 | 0.23 |
| LVDs, mm | 48±7** | 48±6** | 51±11** | 1.0 | 0.35 | 0.61 |
| LVESVI, ml/m2 | 64±14** | 78±25* | 70±26** | 0.90 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| LVEF, % | 34±10 | 33±7* | 39±14** | 1.0 | 0.78 | 0.85 |
| MR grade | 0.4±0.5** | 0.3±0.4** | 0.4±0.7** | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| DCT, ms | 274±61* | 205±70 | 207±60* | 0.25 | 0.06 | 1.0 |
| IPMD, mm | 10±7** | 7±7* | 5±6** | 1.0 | 0.32 | 1.0 |
| CH (2CV), mm | 5±3* | 4±3* | 3±3** | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| CH (4CV), mm | 4±3** | 4±2* | 4±3** | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
PMA = papillary muscle approximation, LVP = left ventriculoplasty, LV = left ventricle, LVDd = LV end-diastolic diameter, LVEF = LV ejection fraction, LVESVI = LV end-systolic volume index, MR = mitral regurgitation, DCT = deceleration time, IPMD = interpapillary muscle distance, CH = coaptation height of the mitral valve, 2CV = 2-chamber apical view, 4CV = 4-chamber apical view.
†Bonferroni corrected P.
*P <0.05 or **P<0.01 compared with preoperative values.
Figure 2Comparison of pre- and postoperative LVEF among those with iPMA, cPMA/LVP-, and cPMA/LVP+. cPMA = complete papillary muscle approximation, iPMA = incomplete PMA, LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction, LVP = left ventriculoplasty. *P < 0.05 compared with preoperative value.
Figure 3Comparison of survival between complete and incomplete papillary muscle approximation procedures (A), and complete papillary muscle approximation with and without left ventriculoplasty (B). cPMA = complete papillary muscle approximation, iPMA = incomplete PMA, LVP = left ventriculoplasty.
Figure 4Comparison of freedom from recurrence between complete and incomplete papillary muscle approximation procedures (A) and complete papillary muscle approximation with and without left ventriculoplasty (B). cPMA = complete papillary muscle approximation, iPMA = incomplete PMA, LVP = left ventriculoplasty.