Why the study?
Does mitral valve repair with restrictive annuloplasty improve outcomes compared to chordal-sparing valve replacement in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation?
Does mitral valve repair with restrictive annuloplasty improve outcomes compared to chordal-sparing valve replacement in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation?
This review highlights that for severe ischemic MR, mitral valve repair with restrictive annuloplasty leads to more recurrent MR and heart failure at 2 years than chordal-sparing replacement, suggesting a need for pathophysiologic-guided repair strategies.
Favors replacement over repair for severe ischemic MR to curb recurrent regurgitation; reinforces RCT evidence for surgical choice.
Approximately 30% to 50% of patients will develop ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) after a myocardial infarction, which is a result of progressive left ventricular remodeling and dysfunction of the subvalvular apparatus, and portends a poor long-term prognosis. Surgical treatment is centered on mitral valve repair utilizing a restrictive annuloplasty, or valve replacement with preservation of the subvalvular apparatus. In the recent Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CSTN) study, patients with severe ischemic MR were randomized to mitral valve repair with a restrictive annuloplasty versus chordal-sparing valve replacement, and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, if indicated. At 2-year follow-up, mitral valve repair was associated with a significantly higher incidence of moderate or greater recurrent MR and heart failure, with no difference in the indices of left ventricular reverse remodeling, as compared with valve replacement. The current appraisal aims to provide insight into the CSTN trial results, and discusses the evidence supporting a pathophysiologic-guided repair strategy incorporating combined annuloplasty and subvalvular repair techniques to optimize the outcomes of mitral valve repair in ischemic MR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mihos et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: