Abhishek Sharma1,2, Sahil Agrawal3, Sunny Goel4, Jeffrey S Borer5,6. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, NY, 11203, USA. abhisheksharma4mamc@gmail.com. 2. Institute of Cardiovascular Research and Technology, Brooklyn, NY, USA. abhisheksharma4mamc@gmail.com. 3. Division of Cardiology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Maimonides Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, NY, 11203, USA. 6. The Howard Gilman Institute for Heart Valve Diseases and the Schiavone Institute for Cardiovascular Translational Research, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR), which occurs in about 20-30% patients with a prior myocardial infarction, is associated with worsening heart failure and an increase in cardiovascular mortality. It should be treated surgically if certain hemodynamic severity criteria are met and in patients who continue to experience symptoms of heart failure despite optimal medical therapy. However, current guidelines do not suggest which of the available approaches to mitral valve surgery-mitral valve (MV) repair or replacement (MVR) is superior for this indication. While MV repair is reported to confer improved survival, MVR may provide higher rates of freedom from recurrent MR. This article attempts to provide the reader with a comprehensive review and comparison of current techniques of mitral valve surgery in patients with severe ischemic MR. RECENT FINDINGS: The first randomized trial to compare MV repair versus MVR in patients with severe ischemic MR, the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trial, was recently concluded and reported no significant difference in the primary outcome of left ventricular end systolic volume index between the two approaches at either 1- or 2-year follow-ups. Data comparing approaches of MV repair and MVR for ischemic MR is largely limited to small, non-randomized retrospective trials. The only randomized trial data to examine this issue suggested no difference in mortality with either MVR or MV repair; however, MVR was shown to be consistently associated with higher rates of MR recurrence. Certain echocardiographic features have been reported to predict poor outcomes with MVR and may help refine the selection of the surgical approach in the individual patient.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR), which occurs in about 20-30% patients with a prior myocardial infarction, is associated with worsening heart failure and an increase in cardiovascular mortality. It should be treated surgically if certain hemodynamic severity criteria are met and in patients who continue to experience symptoms of heart failure despite optimal medical therapy. However, current guidelines do not suggest which of the available approaches to mitral valve surgery-mitral valve (MV) repair or replacement (MVR) is superior for this indication. While MV repair is reported to confer improved survival, MVR may provide higher rates of freedom from recurrent MR. This article attempts to provide the reader with a comprehensive review and comparison of current techniques of mitral valve surgery in patients with severe ischemicMR. RECENT FINDINGS: The first randomized trial to compare MV repair versus MVR in patients with severe ischemicMR, the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trial, was recently concluded and reported no significant difference in the primary outcome of left ventricular end systolic volume index between the two approaches at either 1- or 2-year follow-ups. Data comparing approaches of MV repair and MVR for ischemicMR is largely limited to small, non-randomized retrospective trials. The only randomized trial data to examine this issue suggested no difference in mortality with either MVR or MV repair; however, MVR was shown to be consistently associated with higher rates of MR recurrence. Certain echocardiographic features have been reported to predict poor outcomes with MVR and may help refine the selection of the surgical approach in the individual patient.
Authors: Patrick L Whitlow; Ted Feldman; Wes R Pedersen; D Scott Lim; Robert Kipperman; Richard Smalling; Tanvir Bajwa; Howard C Herrmann; John Lasala; James T Maddux; Murat Tuzcu; Samir Kapadia; Alfredo Trento; Robert J Siegel; Elyse Foster; Donald Glower; Laura Mauri; Saibal Kar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Irving L Kron; Judy Hung; Jessica R Overbey; Denis Bouchard; Annetine C Gelijns; Alan J Moskowitz; Pierre Voisine; Patrick T O'Gara; Michael Argenziano; Robert E Michler; Marc Gillinov; John D Puskas; James S Gammie; Michael J Mack; Peter K Smith; Chittoor Sai-Sudhakar; Timothy J Gardner; Gorav Ailawadi; Xin Zeng; Karen O'Sullivan; Michael K Parides; Roger Swayze; Vinod Thourani; Eric A Rose; Louis P Perrault; Michael A Acker Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Antonio M Calafiore; Reda Refaie; Angela L Iacò; Mahmood Asif; Heythem S Al Shurafa; Hussein Al-Amri; Antonella Romeo; Michele Di Mauro Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Traves D Crabtree; Marci S Bailey; Marc R Moon; Nabil Munfakh; Michael K Pasque; Jennifer S Lawton; Nader Moazami; Kristen A Aubuchon; Ashraf S Al-Dadah; Ralph J Damiano Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Judy Hung; Lampros Papakostas; Stephen A Tahta; Bruce G Hardy; Bruce A Bollen; Carlos M Duran; Robert A Levine Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Sacks; Andrew Drach; Chung-Hao Lee; Amir Khalighi; Bruno Rego; Will Zhang; Salma Ayoub; Ajit Yoganathan; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman Iii Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2019-04-20 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Fanwei Kong; Thuy Pham; Caitlin Martin; John Elefteriades; Raymond McKay; Charles Primiano; Wei Sun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240