BACKGROUND: Recently, endoaneurysomorrhaphy has been proposed as a more physiologic repair of postinfarction left ventricular aneurysm than is linear repair. There are only a few studies comparing the short-term and long-term results of the two techniques. METHODS: Clinical outcomes and echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular volume and sphericity in 27 patients who underwent endoaneurysmorrhaphy were compared with those in 20 patients who had linear repair. RESULTS: The two groups were matched with respect to age, gender, comorbid risk factors, functional class, urgency of the operation, and concomitant procedures. Preoperatively, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in the endoaneurysmorrhaphy group (0.25 +/- 0.08 versus 0.30 +/- 0.09; p = 0.03). Follow-up was available in 44 patients (94%) and ranged from 2 to 86 months (mean, 41.0 +/- 26.5 months). Thirty-day operative mortality, perioperative complications, 5-year survival, and freedom from cardiac death were similar. Early postoperative percentage increase in left ventricular ejection fraction was greater after endoaneurysmorrhaphy (0.51 +/- 0.64 versus 0.18 +/- 0.48; p = 0.036). Long-term functional improvement was significantly better in the endoaneurysmorrhaphy group: At the time of last follow-up, 88% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I/II, compared with 53% after linear repair (p = 0.01). There were no measurable differences between the groups with respect to left ventricular ejection fraction (0.28 +/- 0.11 versus 0.27 +/- 0.11; p = 0.90), left ventricular volume (171.6 +/- 59.1 versus 169.9 +/- 54.4 mL; p = 0.94), and sphericity index (0.61 +/- 0.09 versus 0.61 +/- 0.12; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having a similar effect on left ventricular geometry, endoaneurysmorrhaphy resulted in a greater increase in postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction and a substantially improved long-term clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND: Recently, endoaneurysomorrhaphy has been proposed as a more physiologic repair of postinfarction left ventricular aneurysm than is linear repair. There are only a few studies comparing the short-term and long-term results of the two techniques. METHODS: Clinical outcomes and echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular volume and sphericity in 27 patients who underwent endoaneurysmorrhaphy were compared with those in 20 patients who had linear repair. RESULTS: The two groups were matched with respect to age, gender, comorbid risk factors, functional class, urgency of the operation, and concomitant procedures. Preoperatively, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in the endoaneurysmorrhaphy group (0.25 +/- 0.08 versus 0.30 +/- 0.09; p = 0.03). Follow-up was available in 44 patients (94%) and ranged from 2 to 86 months (mean, 41.0 +/- 26.5 months). Thirty-day operative mortality, perioperative complications, 5-year survival, and freedom from cardiac death were similar. Early postoperative percentage increase in left ventricular ejection fraction was greater after endoaneurysmorrhaphy (0.51 +/- 0.64 versus 0.18 +/- 0.48; p = 0.036). Long-term functional improvement was significantly better in the endoaneurysmorrhaphy group: At the time of last follow-up, 88% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I/II, compared with 53% after linear repair (p = 0.01). There were no measurable differences between the groups with respect to left ventricular ejection fraction (0.28 +/- 0.11 versus 0.27 +/- 0.11; p = 0.90), left ventricular volume (171.6 +/- 59.1 versus 169.9 +/- 54.4 mL; p = 0.94), and sphericity index (0.61 +/- 0.09 versus 0.61 +/- 0.12; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having a similar effect on left ventricular geometry, endoaneurysmorrhaphy resulted in a greater increase in postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction and a substantially improved long-term clinical outcome.