Key result
Quadrangular leaflet resection yielded similar freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation at 82 months compared to chordal replacement (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.07-1.37; P=0.122).
Why the study?
To compare midterm results of quadrangular leaflet resection versus chordal replacement for degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse repair and explore risk factors for recurrent severe mitral regurgitation.
Does quadrangular leaflet resection compared to chordal replacement improve freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation in patients with degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse?
Cohort (n=317)
Does quadrangular leaflet resection compared to chordal replacement improve freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation in patients with degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse?
Hazard Ratio: 0.31 (95% CI 0.07–1.37)
Absolute Event Rate: 95.2% vs 88.5%
p-value: p=0.122
Chordal replacement and quadrangular resection yield similar midterm freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation for degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse, though dilated LVESD is an independent risk factor for recurrence.
Similar midterm durability supports either technique for PML prolapse repair; observational data leaves open whether chordal replacement raises recurrence risk in dilated LVESD.
Background: The aims of the present study was to compare midterm results of quadrangular leaflet resection versus chordal replacement for the repair of degenerative posterior mitral leaflet (PML) prolapse, and to explore the risk factors for recurrent severe mitral regurgitation (MR). Methods: From January 2012 to December 2018, 1,423 consecutive patients underwent mitral valve (MV) repair. A total of 317 had degenerative PML prolapse and constituted the study population. Of these, 74 (23.3%) underwent quadrangular leaflet resection, and 243 (76.7%) underwent chordal replacement. Outcomes were compared by using unadjusted data and propensity score-matched analyses. Results: Patients with multiple leaflet prolapse were more likely to undergo chordal replacement (18.4% vs. 41.9%, P<0.001), and performed as a minimally invasive approach (47.3% vs. 61.7%, P=0.027). Of the entire cohort, 1 death (0.3%) occurred due to intraoperative aortic dissection, and 1 patient who had undergone chordal replacement required reoperation before discharge for posterior leaflet tearing. There was no significant difference in the probability of freedom from recurrent severe MR at 82 months between the resection and neochordae groups in both the pre-matched (95.6% vs. 88.8%, P=0.105) and matched (95.2% vs. 88.5%, P=0.170) cohorts, which was consistent across all of the examined subgroups (P>0.05). Multivariate Cox regression indicated that dilated left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) was an independent risk factor for recurrent severe MR [<40 vs. >40 mm, hazards ratio (HR): 3.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20–8.39, P=0.020]; however, surgical technique was not (resection vs. neochordae, HR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.07–1.37, P=0.122). Conclusions: Chordal replacement for the repair of degenerative posterior MV prolapse yields similar satisfactory outcomes when compared with quadrangular resection, and is promising in minimally invasive cardiac surgery for various lesions. However, it is also associated with more recurrent severe MR, albeit non-significant, for which patients with dilated LVESD are at high risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse (n=317). Quadrangular leaflet resection vs. Chordal replacement was evaluated on Freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.07-1.37, p=0.122). Quadrangular leaflet resection yielded similar freedom from recurrent severe mitral regurgitation at 82 months compared to chordal replacement (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.07-1.37; P=0.122).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: