| Literature DB >> 32400096 |
Satoshi Kainuma1, Koichi Toda1, Shigeru Miyagawa1, Yasushi Yoshikawa1, Hiroki Hata1, Daisuke Yoshioka1, Takuji Kawamura1, Ai Kawamura1, Takayoshi Ueno1, Toru Kuratani1, Haruhiko Kondoh2, Takafumi Masai3, Arudo Hiraoka4, Taichi Sakaguchi4, Hidenori Yoshitaka4, Yukitoshi Shirakawa5, Toshiki Takahashi5, Shunsuke Saito6, Osamu Monta6, Junya Sado7, Tetsuhisa Kitamura8, Sho Komukai9, Atsushi Hirayama10, Kazuhiro Taniguchi2, Yoshiki Sawa1.
Abstract
AIMS: In patients with ischaemic mitral regurgitation (MR), the impact of mitral valve surgery with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on post-operative survival and left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling remains unknown. Therefore, we investigated these outcomes following restrictive mitral annuloplasty (RMA) with and without CABG in those patients. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cardiomyopathy; Coronary artery bypass grafting; Ischaemic mitral regurgitation; Left ventricular reverse remodelling; Restrictive mitral annuloplasty
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32400096 PMCID: PMC7373912 DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12705
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ESC Heart Fail ISSN: 2055-5822
Figure 1CONSORT flowchart for selection of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy who underwent RMA during the study period. MR, mitral regurgitation; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty.
Patient demographics before and after adjustments with IPTW
| Original cohort (crude) | IPTW | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMA with CABG ( | RMA without CABG ( | SMD | RMA with CABG ( | RMA without CABG ( | SMD | |
| Clinical variables | ||||||
| Age, years | 67 ± 9 | 68 ± 11 | 0.100 | 67 ± 9 | 68 ± 12 | 0.061 |
| Male, | 180 (80%) | 72 (86%) | 0.152 | 255 (82%) | 237 (82%) | 0.020 |
| Body surface area, m2 | 1.63 ± 0.18 | 1.62 ± 0.16 | 0.026 | 1.62 ± 0.17 | 1.61 ± 0.17 | 0.097 |
| Emergent operation, | 33 (15%) | 12 (14%) | 0.011 | 44 (14%) | 42 (14%) | 0.009 |
| Redo operation, | 14 (6.2%) | 15 (18%) | 0.363 | 33 (11%) | 29 (9.6%) | 0.063 |
| Catecholamine use, | 18 (8.0%) | 13 (15%) | 0.234 | 32 (10%) | 29 (9.6%) | 0.062 |
| Logistic EuroScore II, % | 15 ± 15 | 16 ± 14 | 0.088 | 16 ± 15 | 16 ± 18 | 0.002 |
| Comorbidities, | ||||||
| eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 | 64 (28%) | 29 (35%) | 0.131 | 90 (29%) | 90 (30%) | 0.059 |
| Diabetes | 130 (58%) | 39 (46%) | 0.229 | 170 (54%) | 168 (55%) | 0.001 |
| Echocardiographic data | ||||||
| LVESD, mm | 54 ± 8 | 56 ± 8 | 0.258 | 55 ± 8 | 55 ± 9 | 0.009 |
| LVEF, % | 29 ± 8 | 27 ± 8 | 0.271 | 28 ± 8 | 28 ± 8 | 0.005 |
| Mitral regurgitation grade, | ||||||
| Mild | 38 (17%) | 9 (11%) | 0.297 | 46 (15%) | 42 (14%) | 0.092 |
| Moderate | 118 (52%) | 38 (45%) | 155 (50%) | 148 (49%) | ||
| Severe | 69 (31%) | 37 (44%) | 112 (36%) | 114 (38%) | ||
| Concomitant procedures, | ||||||
| SVR | 58 (26%) | 38 (45%) | 0.415 | 106 (34%) | 105 (37%) | 0.059 |
| PM approximation | 26 (12%) | 26 (31%) | 0.488 | 54 (17%) | 55 (19%) | 0.047 |
| Aortic valve replacement | 18 (8.0%) | 8 (9.5%) | 0.054 | 28 (9.0%) | 30 (10%) | 0.050 |
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; IPTW, inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end‐systolic dimension; PM, papillary muscle; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty; SMD, standardized mean difference; SVR, surgical ventricular reconstruction.
Patient demographics
| RMA with CABG ( | RMA without CABG ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical variables | |||
| Age, years | 67 ± 9 | 68 ± 11 | 0.409 |
| Male, | 180 (80%) | 72 (86%) | 0.249 |
| Body surface area, m2 | 1.63 ± 0.18 | 1.62 ± 0.16 | 0.838 |
| Emergent operation, | 33 (15%) | 12 (14%) | 0.933 |
| Redo operation, | 14 (6.2%) | 15 (18%) | 0.002 |
| Catecholamine use, | 18 (8.0%) | 13 (15%) | 0.052 |
| Logistic EuroScore II, % | 15 ± 15 | 16 ± 14 | 0.496 |
| History of coronary revascularization | |||
| Pre‐op CABG, n (%) | 12 (5.3%) | 12 (14%) | 0.009 |
| Prior coronary intervention, | 90 (40%) | 76 (90%) | <0.001 |
| None | 135 (60%) | 7 (8.3%) | <0.0001 |
| Single | 44 (20%) | 25 (30%) | |
| Multiple | 46 (20%) | 52 (62%) | |
| Number of PCI history, | 0.9 ± 1.5 | 2.3 ± 1.6 | <0.0001 |
| Comorbidities, n (%) | |||
| eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73m2 | 64 (28%) | 29 (35%) | 0.370 |
| Diabetes | 130 (58%) | 39 (46%) | 0.075 |
| Echocardiographic data | |||
| LVESD, mm | 54 ± 8 | 56 ± 8 | 0.039 |
| LVEF, % | 29 ± 8 | 27 ± 8 | 0.034 |
| Mitral regurgitation grade, | |||
| Mild | 38 (17%) | 9 (11%) | 0.069 |
| Moderate | 118 (52%) | 38 (45%) | |
| Severe | 69 (31%) | 37 (44%) | |
| Medications, | |||
| Statin | 111 (49%) | 45 (54%) | 0.507 |
| Beta‐blockers | 127 (56%) | 59 (70%) | 0.026 |
| ACE inhibitors and/or ARB | 141 (63%) | 62 (74%) | 0.063 |
| Surgical data | |||
| Graft selection, | |||
| No ITA use | 24 (11%) | ‐ | ‐ |
| Single ITA use | 151 (67%) | ‐ | |
| Bilateral ITA use | 50 (22%) | ‐ | |
| Distal anastomoses, | 2.8 ± 1.2 | ‐ | ‐ |
| Mitral annuloplasty ring, | |||
| Partial ring | 9 (4.0%) | 3 (3.6%) | 0.862 |
| Complete ring | 216 (96%) | 81 (96%) | |
| Ring size, | |||
| 24 mm | 63 (28%) | 43 (51%) | 0.001 |
| 26 mm | 102 (45%) | 33 (40%) | |
| 28 mm | 52 (23%) | 8 (9.6%) | |
| 30 mm | 7 (3.1%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 32 mm | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Concomitant procedures, | |||
| SVR | 58 (26%) | 38 (45%) | 0.001 |
| PM approximation | 26 (12%) | 26 (31%) | <0.0001 |
| Aortic valve replacement | 18 (8.0%) | 8 (9.5%) | 0.668 |
ACE, angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ITA, internal thoracic artery; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESD, left ventricular end‐systolic dimension; PM, papillary muscle; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty; SVR, surgical ventricular reconstruction.
Figure 2Freedom from all‐cause mortality (A) and composite adverse events (B) according to the study groups. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty.
Figure 3Cause of death according to the study groups. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty.
Adjusted hazard ratios of death and composite events in patients who underwent restrictive mitral annuloplasty with coronary artery bypass grafting compared with those who underwent restrictive mitral annuloplasty without coronary artery bypass grafting
| Outcomes | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall mortality | |||
| Crude (original cohort) | 0.72 | 0.51–1.00 | 0.050 |
| IPTW | 0.78 | 0.63–0.97 | 0.024 |
| Overall mortality and/or heart failure readmission | |||
| Crude (original cohort) | 0.51 | 0.38–0.68 | <0.001 |
| IPTW | 0.53 | 0.44–0.64 | <0.001 |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Figure 4Longitudinal changes in (A) LVESD and (B) LVEF according to the study groups. Longitudinal changes in (C) LVESD and (D) LVEF according to the CABG indication in patients who did not undergo concomitant SVR. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; LVESD, left ventricular end‐systolic dimension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty; SVR, surgical ventricular reconstruction.
Figure 5Longitudinal changes in the grade of MR according to the study groups. CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; RMA, restrictive mitral annuloplasty; MR, mitral regurgitation.