Key result
Primary mitral regurgitation from MVP shows no significant difference in myocardial perfusion reserve versus controls.
Why the study?
Mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse increases LV preload and promotes LV remodeling and hypertrophy, but its impact on myocardial perfusion and coronary microvascular dysfunction remained unclear.
Does significant primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse alter global myocardial perfusion and myocardial perfusion reserve compared with matched healthy controls?
Observational (n=66)
No
Does significant primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse alter global myocardial perfusion and myocardial perfusion reserve compared with matched healthy controls?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative CMR perfusion mapping demonstrates that global myocardial perfusion and perfusion reserve are preserved in compensated significant primary MR due to MVP, but lower MPR in symptomatic patients suggests coronary microvascular dysfunction emerges as a secondary phenomenon in more advanced disease.
Background Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a common complication of mitral valve prolapse (MVP) and increases left ventricular (LV) preload, promotes LV remodeling and hypertrophy, but its impact on myocardial perfusion and coronary microvascular dysfunction remains unclear. Objectives To assess myocardial perfusion using, for the first time, quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) perfusion mapping in patients with significant MR due to MVP. Methods Patients with significant primary MR, without coronary artery disease were prospectively enrolled and compared to age- and sex-matched controls without MR. All underwent 1.5T CMR including cine imaging, adenosine stress perfusion, native T1, native T2, extracellular volume (ECV) mapping and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) was calculated as the ratio of stress to rest myocardial perfusion. Results In total 33 patients and 33 controls were included (age 56±13 vs. 58±12 years, 46% women in both groups). Patients with MR had increased LV mass and volumes, higher native T1 and ECV and a higher prevalence of LGE (36% vs 0%). No differences were observed in global myocardial perfusion at rest (0.88±0.27 vs. 0.85±0.30, p=0.52), at stress (2.6±0.56 vs. 2.8±0.73 ml/min/g, p=0.29) or for MPR (3.1±0.75 vs. 3.4±1.0, p=0.24). In age- and sex-adjusted linear regression, higher NYHA class was associated with lower MPR (β =–0.60, p=0.04). Conclusion In patients with significant MR due to MVP, myocardial perfusion appears preserved despite LV volume overload. However, lower MPR in symptomatic patients suggests that microvascular dysfunction may emerge in a more advanced disease stage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lodin et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Moderate or severe primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse (n=66). Significant primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse vs. Age- and sex-matched healthy controls without mitral regurgitation or mitral valve prolapse was evaluated on Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR, ratio of adenosine stress to rest myocardial perfusion on quantitative 1.5T CMR) (p=0.24). Patients with significant primary mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse had preserved myocardial perfusion reserve compared with matched controls (3.1±0.75 vs. 3.4±1.0, p=0.24).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: