Papillary muscle intervention vs mitral ring annuloplasty in ischemic mitral regurgitation

Mitral repair with annuloplasty for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation in people undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of mitral repair with annuloplasty for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation in people undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Subannular repair for functional mitral regurgitation with reduced systolic ventricle function: rationale and design of REFORM-MR registry

BACKGROUND

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is one of the most common heart valve diseases that is a sequel of left ventricular remodelling. Although mitral valve annuloplasty is a standard treatment of FMR, the recurrence of FMR is a major drawback and occurs in 10-50% of patients. The REFORM-MR registry aims to investigate the effectiveness of standardized papillary muscle relocation and ring annuloplasty and to identify the risk factors associated with recurrent FMR.

METHODS

REFORM-MR is a prospective, multicenter registry that enrols consecutive FMR patients across five sites in Germany. All patients with FMR and restricted movement of leaflets during systole (i.e., type IIIb mitral regurgitation) undergoing standardized subannular repair in combination with mitral valve annuloplasty are included in the study. The primary objective is to examine the effect of combined papillary muscle relocation and ring annuloplasty on the recurrence of FMR at 2 years postoperatively. The secondary objectives are MACCE rate, reinterventions on the mitral valve and cardiac-related mortality in the study cohort. Echocardiography core-lab and MRI core-lab will provide anonymized analysis of the imaging data in the REFORM-MR registry. Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the Chi-Square or Fisher exact test for categorical variables are used for group comparisons. Kaplan-Meier analyses is performed for survival and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

As of May 2021, a total of 97 patients were enrolled across five sites in Germany.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will help define the outcomes of combined papillary muscle relocation and ring annuloplasty in the FMR treatment in a multicentre setting and to improve the understanding of the limitations of subannular repair procedures while treating patients with type III FMR. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470155.

Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Multifaceted Syndrome with Evolving Therapies

Dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) with impaired contractility following chronic ischemia or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the main cause of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR), leading to moderate and moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation (MR). The site of AMI exerts a specific influence determining different patterns of adverse LV remodeling. In general, inferior-posterior AMI is more frequently associated with regional structural changes than the anterolateral one, which is associated with global adverse LV remodeling, ultimately leading to different phenotypes of IMR. In this narrative review, starting from the aforementioned categorization, we proceed to describe current knowledge regarding surgical approaches in the management of IMR.

Papillary muscle intervention vs mitral ring annuloplasty in ischemic mitral regurgitation

Background and Aims

The main pathophysiological factor of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) is the outward displacement of the papillary muscles (PMs) leading to leaflet tethering. For this reason, papillary muscle intervention (PMI) in combination with mitral ring annuloplasty (MRA) has recently been introduced into clinical practice to correct this displacement, and to reduce the recurrence of regurgitation.

Methods

A meta‐analysis was conducted comparing the outcomes of PMI and MRA performed in combination vs MRA performed alone, in terms of MR recurrence and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). A meta‐regression was carried out to investigate the impact of the type of PMI procedure on the outcomes.

Results

MR recurrence in patients undergoing both PMI and MRA was lower than in those who only had MRA (log incidence rate ratio, −0.66; lower‐upper limits, −1.13 to 0.20; I² = 0.0%; p = .44; Egger's test: intercept 0.35 [−0.78 to 1.51]; p = .42).

The group with both PMI and MRA and that with only MRA showed a slightly higher reduction in left ventricular diameters (−5.94%; −8.75% to 3.13%,). However, in both groups, LVRR was <10%. No difference was detected between PM relocation/repositioning and papillary muscle approximation in terms of LVRR (p = .33).

Conclusions

Using PMI and MRA together has a lower MR recurrence than using MRA alone. No significant LVRR was observed between the two groups nor between the PMI techniques employed.