Repair or prosthesis insertion in ischemic mitral regurgitation: Two faces of the same medal

Abstract

Objective

The proper treatment of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR) is still under evaluation. The different role of mitral valve repair (MVr) or mitral valve prosthesis insertion (MVPI) is still not defined.

Methods

From May 2009 to December 2011 167 patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 40% had MV surgery for CIMR, MVr in 135 (80.8%) and MVPI in 32 (19.2%). Indication to MVPI was a MV coaptation depth > 10 mm. EF was lower (26 ± 7 vs 32 ± 6, p = 0.0000) in MVPI, whereas MR grade (3.6 ± 0.8 vs 2.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.0000), left ventricle dimensions (end diastolic, LVEDD, 62 ± 7 vs 57 ± 6 mm, p = 0.0001; end systolic, LVESD, 49 ± 8 vs 44 ± 8 mm, p = 0.0018), systolic pulmonary artery pressure (51 ± 22 vs 41 ± 16 mm Hg, p = 0.0037) and NYHA Class (3.6 ± 0.5 vs 2.8 ± 0.6, p = 0.0000) were higher.

Results

In-hospital mortality was similar (3.1 vs 3.7%) as well as 3-year survival (86 ± 6 vs 88 ± 4) and survival in NYHA Class I/II (80 ± 5 vs 83 ± 4). One hundred thirty nine patients had an echocardiographic evaluation after a minimum of 4 months (13 ± 8). EF rose significantly in both groups (from 26 ± 7% to 30 ± 4%, p = 0.0122, and from 32 ± 6% to 35 ± 8%, p = 0.0018). LVESD reduced significantly in both groups (from 49 ± 8 to 43 ± 9 mm, p = 0.0109, and from 44 ± 8 to 41 ± 7 mm, p = 0.0033). MR grade was significantly lower in patients who had MVPI (0.1 ± 0.2 vs 0.3 ± 0.3, p = 0.0011).

Conclusions

With appropriate indications, MVPI is a safe procedure which provides similar results to MVr with lower MR return, even if addressed to patients with worse preoperative parameters.