Key result
Artificial chordae implantation significantly decreased left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P<0.001), whereas the decrease after posterior leaflet preservation was not significant (P=0.20).
Why the study?
Various techniques exist for preserving the subvalvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement, but their relative effects on midterm left ventricular performance were uncompared.
Does artificial chordae implantation improve left ventricular performance compared to posterior leaflet preservation in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Cohort (n=127)
Does artificial chordae implantation improve left ventricular performance compared to posterior leaflet preservation in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Artificial chordae implantation is a satisfactory alternative for preserving the subvalvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement when posterior leaflet preservation is not suitable, leading to significant reductions in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter.
May support artificial chordae when leaflet preservation is unsuitable in MVR; hypothesis-generating without randomized comparison.
BACKGROUND: Various techniques have been proposed for the preservation of the subvalvular apparatus (SVA) in mitral valve replacement. This study aimed to compare the midterm results of posterior leaflet preservation with the results of selective preservation of the SVA involving artificial chordae implantation in terms of left ventricular performance in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. METHODS: In total, 127 patients were included in this study. Patients were allocated to 1 of 2 groups according to the techniques used to preserve the SVA. Patients in group 1 underwent posterior leaflet preservation: The anterior leaflet was completely resected, and the posterior leaflet was preserved. In group 2, which comprised patients with severe leaflet extension and subvalvular fusion, the mitral valve was excised completely and substituted with artificial chordae. All relevant preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were recorded. RESULTS: Mean (SD) ages in groups 1 and 2 were 63.1 (9.65) and 57.1 (12.3) years, respectively (P = .003). Mean (SD) follow-up time was 59.97 (23.63) months (range, 6-99 months). Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased significantly after artificial chordae implantation (P < .001), while the decrease after posterior leaflet preservation was not statistically significant (P = .20). In both groups, there were statistically significant reductions (P < .001) in left ventricular end-systolic diameter and left atrium diameter in the postoperative period compared with respective preoperative levels. During follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction was found to have increased beyond the preoperative levels in both groups, but the differences were not statistically significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Results of echocardiographic observations regarding the preservation of the SVA via artificial chordae implantation for mitral valve disease in this sample were satisfactory. Findings suggest that artificial chordae implantation should be considered when posterior leaflet preservation is not suitable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salihi et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease (n=127). Artificial chordae implantation vs. Posterior leaflet preservation was evaluated on Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (p=<.001). Artificial chordae implantation significantly decreased left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P<0.001), whereas the decrease after posterior leaflet preservation was not significant (P=0.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: