Is repair preferable to replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation?

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare mitral valve repair and replacement as treatments for ischemic mitral regurgitation. METHODS: From 1985 through 1997, a total of 482 patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation underwent either valve repair (n = 397) or valve replacement (n = 85). Patients more likely (P < or =.01) to undergo repair had functional mitral regurgitation or coronary revascularization with an internal thoracic artery graft; those more likely to receive valve replacement were in higher New York Heart Association functional classes or underwent emergency operations. These factors were used for multivariable propensity matching. Risk factors for early and late death were identified by multivariable, multiphase hazard function analysis. RESULTS: Within the propensity-matched better-risk group, survivals after valve replacement were 81%, 56%, and 36% at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, but survivals after repair were 94%, 82%, and 58% at these intervals (P =.08). In contrast, within the poor-risk group, survivals after repair and replacement were similar (P =.4). Risk factors (P < or =.01) included older age, higher functional class, greater wall motion abnormality, and renal dysfunction. Approximately 70% of patients were predicted to benefit from repair; the benefit lessened or was negated if an internal thoracic artery graft was not used, if a lateral wall motion abnormality was present, or if the mitral regurgitation jet pattern was complex. Freedom from repair failure at 5 years was 91%. CONCLUSION: Late survival is poor after surgery for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Most patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation benefit from mitral valve repair. In the most complex, high-risk settings, survivals after repair and replacement are similar.

Is anterior leaflet repair always necessary in repair of bileaflet mitral valve prolapse?

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, bileaflet prolapse has been treated by posterior leaflet resection combined with one of a number of procedures designed to support the anterior leaflet. However, most patients with bileaflet prolapse do not have important anterior chordal pathology. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy of posterior leaflet resection and annuloplasty alone for patients with bileaflet prolapse and no anterior chordal rupture or severe anterior chordal elongation. METHODS: From 1993 to 1997, 93 patients with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) demonstrated bileaflet prolapse and without anterior chordal rupture or important anterior chordal elongation had primary isolated mitral valve repair consisting only of posterior leaflet resection (quadrangular in 28 and sliding in 65) and annuloplasty (Cosgrove-Edwards in 83, pericardial in 9, and Carpentier-Edwards in 1). All patients had severe mitral regurgitation documented by intraoperative TEE. Mean age was 55+/-13 years; 60% were men. RESULTS: Postrepair, mitral regurgitation was 0 to trace in 93% and 1+ in 7%. There were no operative deaths. Late follow-up was available in all patients, with 277 patient-years of follow-up available for analysis. Five-year actuarial survival was 95%. At a mean interval of 2.3+/-1.3 (SD) years, echocardiography demonstrated no or trace mitral regurgitation in 65%, 1+ in 28%, and 2+ in 7%. No correlates of late mitral regurgitation were identified by multivariable analysis. No patient has required reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of significant anterior chordal pathology, a strategy of posterior leaflet resection and annuloplasty corrects anterior leaflet prolapse and mitral regurgitation, and provides a durable repair without the necessity of additional procedures on the anterior leaflet.