Related Experiment Videos
Should mild-to-moderate and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation be corrected in patients with impaired left
E Prifti1, M Bonacchi, G Frati
1Cattedra di Cardiochirurgia, Policlinico Careggi, Firenze, Italy. edvinprifti@hotmail.com
Introduction:
Mitral valve regurgitation (MR) occurring as a result of myocardial ischemia and global left ventricular (LV) dysfunction predicts poor outcome. This study assessed the feasibility of mitral valve (MV) surgery concomitant with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with mild-to-moderate and moderate ischemic MR and impaired LV function.
Materials And Method:
From January 1996 to July 2000, 49 patients (group 1) and 50 patients (group 2) with grade II and grade III ischemic MR and LV ejection fraction (EF) between 17% and 30% underwent combined MV surgery and CABG (group 1) or isolated CABG (group 2). LVEF (%), LV end-diastolic diameter (EDD) (mm), LV end-diastolic pressure (EDP) (mmHg), and LV end-systolic diameter (ESD) (mm) were 27.5 +/- 5, 67.7 +/- 7,27.7 +/- 4, and 51.4 +/- 7, respectively in group 1 versus 27.8 +/- 4, 67.5 +/- 6, 27.5 +/- 5, and 51.2 +/- 6, respectively in group 2. Groups 1 and 2 were divided into Groups 1A and 2A with mild-to-moderate MR (22 [45%] and 28 [56%] patients, respectively) and groups 1B and 2B with moderate MR (27 [55%] and 22 [46%], respectively). In group 1, MV repair was performed in 43 (88%) patients and MV replacement in 6 (12%) patients.
Results:
Preoperative data analysis did not reveal any difference between groups. Five (10%) patients in group 1 died versus 6 (12%) in group 2 (p = ns). Within 6 months after surgery, LV function and its geometry improved significantly in group 1 versus group 2 (LVEF, p < 0.001; LVEDD, p = 0.002; LVESD, p = 0.003; and LVEDP (p < 0.001) improved significantly in group 1 instead of a mild improvement in Group 2). The regurgitation fraction decreased significantly in group 1 patients after surgery (p < 0.001). There was an inverse strong correlation between postoperative forward cardiac output and regurgitation fraction (p < 0.001). LVEF and LVESD improved significantly in group 1 versus group 2 patients (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). The cardiac index increased significantly in group 1 and 2 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). LV function and geometry improved significantly postoperatively in group 1B versus group 2B (LVEDD, p = 0.027; LVESD, p = 0.014; LVEDP, p = 0.034; and LVEF, p = 0.02), instead of a mild improvement in group 1A versus group 2A (LVESD, p = 0.015; LVEF, p = 0.046; and LVEDD and LVEDP, p = 0.05). At follow-up, 4 (67%) of 6 patients undergoing MV replacement died versus 5 (11.5%) of 43 patients undergoing MV repair in group 1 (p = 0.007). The overall survival at 3 years in Group 2 was significantly lower than group 1 (p < 0.009).
Conclusion:
MV repair and replacement-preserving subvalvular apparatus in patients with impaired LV function offered acceptable outcomes in terms of morbidity and survival. Surgical correction of mild-to-moderate and moderate MR in patients with impaired LV function should be taken into consideration since it yields better survival and improved LV function.