Original Article
Mitral valve repair versus replacement in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation
Abstract
Background: The optimal management of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is controversial. The aim of this study was to examine our eight years’ experience of surgical treatment in patients with IMR, and to compare outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: A retrospective, observational, cohort study was undertaken to collect data on consecutive patients with IMR and coronary artery disease who received CABG and mitral valve surgery in our hospital between January 2008 and December 2015. Basic patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative clinical outcomes were examined.
Results: The series included 22 consecutive patients (21 male; 1 female). The mean age was 62.1±11.4 years old. The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 33.4%±15.4%. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was 165.4±38.4 minutes, and the mean aortic cross clamp time was 113.8±33.6 minutes. Eighteen patients underwent CABG plus mitral valve repair, and four patients underwent CABG plus mitral valve replacement (MVR). There were three early in-hospital mortalities: two in the mitral valve repair group, and one in the replacement group. The follow-up was complete in all patients, with a mean follow-up duration of 3.1±2.3 years. The mean last LVEF was 35.3%±17.7%. There were 2 late mortalities. Both were from the repair group. The overall late survival rate was 81.6%, with 83.0% in the repair group and 75.0% in the replacement group. In patients with echocardiography follow-up of more than or equal to 1 year duration, the residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation rates were 0.0% in the replacement group and 57.1% in the repair group. One patient in the repair group later underwent MVR due to severe regurgitation postoperatively.
Conclusions: Our preliminary findings showed that the surgical outcome of mitral valve repair might be comparable to that of MVR in terms of early mortality and long-term survival. However, mitral valve repair was associated with a higher residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation rate. According to the latest literature, the role of MVR can justifiably be indicated for severe IMR. As for moderate IMR, CABG alone without mitral valve intervention may provide similar clinical outcomes.
Methods: A retrospective, observational, cohort study was undertaken to collect data on consecutive patients with IMR and coronary artery disease who received CABG and mitral valve surgery in our hospital between January 2008 and December 2015. Basic patient characteristics, operative data, and postoperative clinical outcomes were examined.
Results: The series included 22 consecutive patients (21 male; 1 female). The mean age was 62.1±11.4 years old. The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 33.4%±15.4%. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was 165.4±38.4 minutes, and the mean aortic cross clamp time was 113.8±33.6 minutes. Eighteen patients underwent CABG plus mitral valve repair, and four patients underwent CABG plus mitral valve replacement (MVR). There were three early in-hospital mortalities: two in the mitral valve repair group, and one in the replacement group. The follow-up was complete in all patients, with a mean follow-up duration of 3.1±2.3 years. The mean last LVEF was 35.3%±17.7%. There were 2 late mortalities. Both were from the repair group. The overall late survival rate was 81.6%, with 83.0% in the repair group and 75.0% in the replacement group. In patients with echocardiography follow-up of more than or equal to 1 year duration, the residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation rates were 0.0% in the replacement group and 57.1% in the repair group. One patient in the repair group later underwent MVR due to severe regurgitation postoperatively.
Conclusions: Our preliminary findings showed that the surgical outcome of mitral valve repair might be comparable to that of MVR in terms of early mortality and long-term survival. However, mitral valve repair was associated with a higher residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation rate. According to the latest literature, the role of MVR can justifiably be indicated for severe IMR. As for moderate IMR, CABG alone without mitral valve intervention may provide similar clinical outcomes.
