Key result
Leaflet preservation shows no difference versus resection for LV reverse remodeling at 52 weeks.
Why the study?
The comparative effectiveness of leaflet resection versus leaflet preservation techniques during mitral valve repair on left ventricular reverse remodelling remains debated.
Does leaflet resection compared to leaflet preservation improve left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse undergoing mitral valve repair?
Observational (n=175)
Central blinded independent core laboratory
Yes
Does leaflet resection compared to leaflet preservation improve left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse undergoing mitral valve repair?
p-value: p=0.24
Both leaflet resection and preservation techniques during mitral valve repair lead to similar and significant left ventricular reverse remodelling at 52 weeks.
Objectives Mitral valve repair (MVr) promotes left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling, and subsequent reduction in LV diameters and volumes. The effectiveness of different MVr techniques, Resect (leaflet resection) and Respect (leaflet preservation) remains debated. This study aimed to investigate the impact of ‘Resect’ and ‘ Respect’ techniques on LV reverse remodelling, primarily assessed by changes in indexed LV end-systolic diameter (ILVESD) post-MVr. Methods Data were drawn from the UK Mini Mitral Trial, which randomised 330 patients to MVr via mini-thoracotomy or median-sternotomy. This subanalysis included patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse, who had undergone MVr via Resect or Respect techniques. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre-operatively and at 12 and 52 weeks post-operatively, with all studies analysed by a core laboratory. Linear mixed-effects models compared changes in indexed LV measurements between groups. Results This subanalysis included 175 patients (36 Resect and 139 Respect) . Annuloplasty was performed in all but one repair. We found no significant difference between groups in recurrent MR severity at 52 weeks postoperatively ( p = 0.31). Both groups had significant improvement in ILVESD by 52 weeks (mean change from baseline − 5.6%, p < 0.001), with no difference between groups ( p = 0.24). Both techniques led to significant improvements in indexed end-diastolic LV volumes and diameters, decreasing from baseline to 12 and 52 weeks. However, LV end-systolic volumes and diameters increased at 12 weeks before decreasing by 52 weeks postoperatively. Conclusion No significant differences in LV reverse remodelling between Resect and Respect techniques. Both can be recommended to surgeons. Longer follow-up is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Severe mitral regurgitation with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse (n=175). Leaflet preservation (Respect technique) vs. Leaflet resection (Resect technique) was evaluated on Difference in indexed left ventricular end-systolic diameter (ILVESD) from baseline to 52 weeks (p=0.24). Leaflet preservation (Respect) and leaflet resection (Resect) techniques showed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodelling, measured by change in indexed left ventricular end-systolic diameter, at 52 weeks post-surgery (p=0.24).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: