Concomitant Mitral Valve Repair vs Replacement During Surgical Ventricular Restoration for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

• Published in: Angiology 2024-04, Vol.75 (4), p.331-339
• Main Authors: Arafat, Amr A., Alghamdi, Rawan, Alfonso, Juan J., Shalaby, Mostafa A., Alotaibi, Khaled, Pragliola, Claudio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0003-3197; 1940-1574
• DOI: 10.1177/00033197231154353

There is no consensus regarding mitral valve management during surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) for ischemic cardiomyopathy. We compared the impact of SVR with mitral valve repair (MVr) vs replacement (MVR) on postoperative outcomes and long-term survival in ischemic cardiomyopathy and mitral regurgitation patients. This study included 112 patients who underwent SVR from 2009 to 2018 with MVr (n = 75) or MVR (n = 37). Patients who had MVR had higher Euro SCORE II, dyspnea class, a lower ejection fraction, higher pulmonary artery systolic pressure, higher grade of preoperative mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, and higher end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters. Intra-aortic balloon pump was more commonly used in patients with MVR. Hospital mortality occurred in 7 (9.33%) patients in the MVr group vs 3 (8.11%) in the MVR group (P > .99). Freedom from rehospitalization at 1, 5, and 7 years was 87%, 76%, and 70% in the MVr group and 83%, 61%, and 52% in the MVR group (P = .191). Survival at 1, 5, and 7 years was 88%, 78%, and 74% in the MVr group and 88%, 56%, and 56% in the MVR group (P = .027). Adjusted survival did not differ between groups. MVr or MVR are valid options in patients undergoing SVR, with good long-term outcomes.