Key result
Durable mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation was associated with greater LV ejection fraction (32.8% vs 22.0%, P=0.03) compared to patients with recurrent MR.
Why the study?
While MVr-PMA reduces MR recurrence compared with MVr alone in severe secondary MR, its specific effects on LV remodeling, shape, systolic function, and strain mechanics required assessment.
Does mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation improve left ventricular remodeling and function in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation?
Cohort (n=48)
Does mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation improve left ventricular remodeling and function in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 32.8% vs 22%
p-value: p=0.03
Durable mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation is associated with improved left ventricular geometry and stable mechanics, with pre-operative LV end-diastolic diameter ≥ 64 mm predicting MR recurrence.
Durable MVr-PMA was associated with better LV remodeling; leaves open whether it improves outcomes in secondary MR.
BACKGROUND: Mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation (MVr-PMA) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) decreases MR recurrence compared with MVr alone. This study assessed the effects of MVr-PMA on left ventricular (LV) remodeling and shape, systolic function and strain mechanics. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent MVr-PMA for severe secondary MR and had follow-up echocardiograms available for review were identified. Student's t-test, linear regression modeling, and receiver-operating characteristic curves were used in the statistical analyses. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 14.9 months. MVr-PMA was associated with significant LV reverse remodeling with a smaller LV end-diastolic diameter, Systolic Sphericity Index, and interpapillary muscle distance at follow-up. Nine patients (18.8%) experienced moderate recurrent MR. When compared to recurrent MR patients at follow-up, those with durable MVr-PMA had a greater LV ejection fraction (32.8 vs. 22.0%, P=0.03), a smaller end-diastolic diameter (59.6 vs. 67.3 mm, P=0.03), Systolic Sphericity Index (0.35 vs. 0.47, P=0.03), and end-systolic interpapillary muscle distance (16.3 vs. 21.1 mm, P=0.03). A durable MVr-PMA also resulted in stable global longitudinal strain when compared with pre-operative values, while the recurrent MR group experienced a further decline (no recurrent MR: -8.4 vs. -7.5%; recurrent MR: -8.2 vs. -5.4%; P<0.05). A pre-operative LV end-diastolic diameter ≥ 64 mm was a discriminative predictor of MR recurrence (sensitivity=100%, specificity=51%, AUC=0.756, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A durable MVr-PMA confers improved LV geometry and function, and stable LV mechanics. The extent of baseline LV remodeling identifies patients at risk for recurrent MR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wessly et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in severe secondary mitral regurgitation (n=48). Durable mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation (MVr-PMA) vs. Recurrent MR after MVr-PMA was evaluated on LV ejection fraction at follow-up (p=0.03). Durable mitral valve repair with papillary muscle approximation was associated with greater LV ejection fraction (32.8% vs 22.0%, P=0.03) compared to patients with recurrent MR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: