Key result
Surgical ventricular reconstruction achieving >30% volume reduction yielded a 38% mean relative increase in LVEF compared to 30% for reductions <30%, with similar 30-day mortality (5.8% vs 5.2%).
Why the study?
Surgical ventricular reconstruction reverses ventricular remodeling in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the comparative impact of achieving more versus less than 30% ventricular volume reduction on LVEF and outcomes needed evaluation.
Does >30% volume reduction achieved by surgical ventricular reconstruction improve LVEF and patient outcomes compared to <30% reduction in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Systematic Review (n=4,975)
Does >30% volume reduction achieved by surgical ventricular reconstruction improve LVEF and patient outcomes compared to <30% reduction in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 38% vs 30%
Surgical ventricular reconstruction achieving >30% volume reduction is associated with greater improvements in LVEF and NYHA class compared to <30% reduction, with similar short-term mortality.
SVR improves LVEF and NYHA class in ischemic cardiomyopathy irrespective of volume reduction threshold; extends observational data but leaves randomized confirmation open.
Background: Ischemic cardiomyopathy, commonly attributable to coronary artery disease, leads to ventricular remodeling. Surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) aims to reverse this by restoring cardiac morphology. This review evaluates SVR's influence on ventricular volume reduction, comparing <30% to >30% reduction effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted included left ventricular end systolic volume, LVEF, New York Heart Association classification, mitral regurgitation grade, and mortality rates. Results: Of the 37 articles included, 29 reported a mean volume reduction of >30%, while 8 reported a reduction <30%. A total of 4975 participants were included across all studies. Mean volume reduction was 43% in group 1 (>30%) and 28% in group 2 (<30%). The mean relative increase in LVEF for group 1 was 38%, which was larger compared to group 2 with 30%. Additionally, mean reduction in New York Heart Association class was 1.5 in group 1 and 1.2 in group 2. There was no difference in mitral regurgitation grade reduction between the 2 groups. Postoperative mortality within 30 days was 5.8% in group 1 vs. 5.2% in group 2. Conclusions: Both volume reduction groups showed improved LVEF and outcomes post-SVR, indicating the efficacy of SVR. The majority of studies achieved a volume reduction exceeding 30%, surpassing the 19% reported in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial. Further meta-analysis can determine optimal volume reduction for enhanced cardiac function and outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osmani et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review in Ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=4,975). Surgical ventricular reconstruction with >30% volume reduction vs. Surgical ventricular reconstruction with <30% volume reduction was evaluated on Mean relative increase in LVEF. Surgical ventricular reconstruction achieving >30% volume reduction yielded a 38% mean relative increase in LVEF compared to 30% for reductions <30%, with similar 30-day mortality (5.8% vs 5.2%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: