Baotong Li1, Hengchao Wu1, Hansong Sun2, Jianping Xu1, Yunhu Song1, Wei Wang1, Shuiyun Wang1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Adult Cardiac Surgery, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Adult Cardiac Surgery, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. drsunhs@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with severe chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR), they do not specify whether to repair or replace the mitral valve. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes in patients with severe CIMR undergoing mitral valve annuloplasty (MVA) versus subvalvular sparing mitral valve replacement (MVR). METHODS: 392 consecutive patients who underwent MVA or subvalvular sparing MVR for treatment of severe CIMR were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline differences with multivariable regression analysis at 53 months follow-up (interquartile range, 34-81 months), there was no significant difference between the two groups for risk of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), cardiac death, or all-cause death. Propensity score matching extracted 77 pairs. During the follow-up, compared with the MVR group, both the left atrium and left ventricle end-diastolic diameter were markedly larger (p = 0.013 and p = 0.033, respectively), and the incidence of mitral regurgitation recurrence was significantly higher in the MVA group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two propensity score-matched groups in composite in-hospital outcomes, overall survival, freedom from cardiac death or MACCE, except subvalvular sparing MVR was associated with a lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure than MVA (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Subvalvular sparing MVR is a suitable management of patients with severe CIMR, it is more favorable to ventricular remodeling and is associated with a lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure than MVA.
BACKGROUND: Although practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with severe chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR), they do not specify whether to repair or replace the mitral valve. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes in patients with severe CIMR undergoing mitral valve annuloplasty (MVA) versus subvalvular sparing mitral valve replacement (MVR). METHODS: 392 consecutive patients who underwent MVA or subvalvular sparing MVR for treatment of severe CIMR were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline differences with multivariable regression analysis at 53 months follow-up (interquartile range, 34-81 months), there was no significant difference between the two groups for risk of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), cardiac death, or all-cause death. Propensity score matching extracted 77 pairs. During the follow-up, compared with the MVR group, both the left atrium and left ventricle end-diastolic diameter were markedly larger (p = 0.013 and p = 0.033, respectively), and the incidence of mitral regurgitation recurrence was significantly higher in the MVA group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two propensity score-matched groups in composite in-hospital outcomes, overall survival, freedom from cardiac death or MACCE, except subvalvular sparing MVR was associated with a lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure than MVA (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Subvalvular sparing MVR is a suitable management of patients with severe CIMR, it is more favorable to ventricular remodeling and is associated with a lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure than MVA.
Authors: William A Zoghbi; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Elyse Foster; Paul A Grayburn; Carol D Kraft; Robert A Levine; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Catherine M Otto; Miguel A Quinones; Harry Rakowski; William J Stewart; Alan Waggoner; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Christina M Vassileva; Theresa Boley; Stephen Markwell; Stephen Hazelrigg Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Rick A Nishimura; Catherine M Otto; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Lee A Fleisher; Hani Jneid; Michael J Mack; Christopher J McLeod; Patrick T O'Gara; Vera H Rigolin; Thoralf M Sundt; Annemarie Thompson Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Francesca Bursi; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Vuyisile T Nkomo; Steven J Jacobsen; Susan A Weston; Ryan A Meverden; Véronique L Roger Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-01-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Réal Lebeau; Maria Di Lorenzo; Robert Amyot; Martin Veilleux; Raymond Lemieux; Claude Sauvé Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Alec Vahanian; Ottavio Alfieri; Felicita Andreotti; Manuel J Antunes; Gonzalo Barón-Esquivias; Helmut Baumgartner; Michael Andrew Borger; Thierry P Carrel; Michele De Bonis; Arturo Evangelista; Volkmar Falk; Bernard Lung; Patrizio Lancellotti; Luc Pierard; Susanna Price; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Gerhard Schuler; Janina Stepinska; Karl Swedberg; Johanna Takkenberg; Ulrich Otto Von Oppell; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Marian Zembala Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 4.191