Key result
Severe septal thickness (≥ 18 mm) did not significantly impact the postoperative left ventricular outflow tract gradient compared to moderate septal thickness (14.8 vs 18.2 mmHg, p=0.1) after extended septal myectomy and subvalvular mitral apparatus remodeling.
Why the study?
The impact of septal thickness on long-term outcomes of surgical treatment for HOCM and correction of mitral subvalvular anomalies was unclear.
Does baseline septal thickness impact outcomes after extended septal myectomy and subvalvular mitral apparatus remodeling in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=66)
No
Does baseline septal thickness impact outcomes after extended septal myectomy and subvalvular mitral apparatus remodeling in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 14.8% vs 18.2%
p-value: p=0.1
Subvalvular apparatus remodeling with concomitant septal myectomy provides satisfactory long-term outcomes in HOCM patients regardless of baseline septal thickness.
Septal thickness should not yet guide HOCM surgical planning; leaves open need for prospective validation of remodeling strategies.
Background The aim of this study was to assess the impact of septal thickness on long-term outcomes of surgical treatment for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) and correction of mitral subvalvular anomalies. Methods Sixty-six consecutive patients (58 ± 12 years, 56% female) undergoing extended septal myectomy and subvalvular mitral apparatus remodeling from 2007 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to septal thickness: moderate [< 18 mm, 29 patients (44%)] and severe [≥ 18 mm, 37 patients (56%)]. End points included survival, symptom improvement, reduction of left ventricle outflow tract (LVOT) gradient, resolution of mitral regurgitation (MR), and reoperation. Results The mean interventricular septal thickness was 19 ± 3 mm, 15.8 ± 0.8 mm in patients with moderate and 21.4 ± 3.2 mm in those with severe hypertrophy. Preoperative data, intraoperative variables, postoperative complication rates, pre-discharge echocardiographic and clinical parameters did not differ between the two study groups [except for procedures involving the posterior mitral leaflet ( p = 0.033) and septal thickness after myectomy ( p = 0.0001)]. Subvalvular apparatus remodeling (secondary chordae of mitral valve resection and papillary muscle and muscularis trabecula procedures including resection, splitting, and elongation) was invariably added to septal myectomy (100%). Four (6%) procedures involved the posterior mitral leaflets. Mitral valve replacement was carried out in two patients (3%, p = 0.4). Reoperation for persistent MR was necessary in one patient (1%, p = 0.4). Neither iatrogenic ventricular septal defect nor in-hospital mortality occurred. During follow-up (mean 4.8 ± 3.8 years), two deaths occurred. NYHA class was reduced from 2.9 ± 0.7 to 1.6 ± 0.6 ( p < 0.0001), the LVOT gradient from 89.7 ± 34.5 to 16.3 ± 8.8 mmHg ( p < 0.0001), mitral valve regurgitation grade from 2.5 ± 1 to 1.2 ± 0.5 ( p < 0.0001), and septal thickness from 18.9 ± 3.7 to 13.9 ± 2.7 mm ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions Regardless of septal thickness, subvalvular apparatus remodeling with concomitant septal myectomy can provide satisfactory long-term outcomes in terms of symptom improvement, LVOT obstruction relief, and MR resolution (without mitral valve replacement in most cases) in patients with HOCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raffa et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (n=66). Severe septal thickness (≥ 18 mm) vs. Moderate septal thickness (< 18 mm) was evaluated on LVOT gradient at follow-up (p=0.1). Severe septal thickness (≥ 18 mm) did not significantly impact the postoperative left ventricular outflow tract gradient compared to moderate septal thickness (14.8 vs 18.2 mmHg, p=0.1) after extended septal myectomy and subvalvular mitral apparatus remodeling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: