ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of mitral repair and replacement in revascularized patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Combined coronary bypass (CABG) and mitral procedures have been associated with the highest mortality (>10%) in cardiac surgery. Recent studies have suggested that mitral valve replacement (MVR) with sparing of the subvalvular apparatus had comparable results to mitral repair when associated with CABG. METHODS: Over the past 7 years, 54 patients had CABG/mitral repair versus 56 who had CABG/MVR with preservation of the subvalvular apparatus. The groups were similar in age at 69.2 years in the replacement group versus 67.0 in the repair group. We compared these 2 groups based on hospital mortality, incidence of complications including nosocomial infection, neurologic decompensation (stroke), pulmonary complication (pneumonia, atelectasis, and prolonged ventilation), and renal complications (acute renal failure or insufficiency). RESULTS: The mitral repair group had a hospital mortality of 1.9% versus 10.7% in the replacement group (P = 0.05). Infection occurred in 9% of repairs compared with 13% of replacements (P = 0.59). The incidence of stroke was no different between groups (2 of 54 repairs vs. 2 of 56 replacements, P = 1.00). Pulmonary complication rate was 39% in repairs versus 32% in replacements (P = 0.59). Worsening renal function occurred in 15% of repairs versus 18% of replacements (P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Mitral repair is superior to mitral replacement when associated with coronary artery disease in terms of perioperative morbidity and hospital mortality. Although preservation of the subvalvular apparatus with MVR has a theoretical advantage in terms of ventricular function, mitral repair clearly adds a survival benefit in patients with concomitant ischemic cardiac disease.
