Patients over 70 years of age with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing surgical revascularization plus mitral valve repair: insights from a single-center study of propensity-matched data

Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation with Ejection Fraction <40% Undergoing Concomitant Mitral Valve Repair during Revascularization: A Single-Center Observational Study

Background

Numerous studies have examined the therapeutic effects of mitral valve repair during revascularization on moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR), as well as the incremental benefit of subvalvular repair alongside an annuloplasty ring. However, the impact of depressed left ventricular (LV) function on the surgical outcome of patients with moderate IMR has been rarely investigated. The aims of this single-center, retrospective, observational study were firstly to evaluate short- and medium-term outcomes in this patient group after undergoing mitral valve repair during revascularization, and secondly to assess the impact of depressed LV function on surgical outcomes.

Methods

A total of 272 eligible patients who had moderate IMR and underwent concomitant mitral valve repair and revascularization from January 2010 to December 2017 were included in the study. These patients were categorized into different groups based on their ejection fraction (EF) levels: an EF < 40% group (n = 90) and an EF ≥ 40% group (n = 182). The median time course of follow-up was 42 months and the shortest follow-up time was 30 months. This study compared in-hospital outcomes (major postoperative morbidity and surgical mortality) as well as midterm outcomes (moderate or more mitral regurgitation, all-cause mortality, and reoperation) of the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching (1:1).

Results

No significant difference was observed in surgical mortality between groups (8.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.076). More patients in the EF < 40% group developed low cardiac output (8.9% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.034) and prolonged ventilation (13.3% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.026) compared to the EF ≥ 40% group. Propensity score (PS) matching successfully established 82 patient pairs in a 1:1 ratio. No significance was discovered between the matched cohorts in terms of major postoperative morbidity and surgical mortality, except for prolonged ventilation. Conditional mixed-effects logistic regression analysis revealed that EF < 40% had an independent impact on prolonged ventilation (odds ratio (OR) = 2.814, 95% CI 1.321-6.151, p = 0.031), but was not an independent risk factor for surgical mortality (OR = 2.967, 95% CI 0.712-7.245, p = 0.138) or other major postoperative morbidity. Furthermore, the two groups showed similar cumulative survival before (log-rank p = 0.278) and after (stratified log-rank p = 0.832) PS matching. Cox regression analysis suggested that EF < 40% was not related to mortality compared with EF ≥ 40% (PS-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.151, 95% CI 0.763-1.952, p = 0.281).

Conclusions

Patients with moderate IMR and EF < 40% shared similar midterm outcomes and surgical mortality to patients with moderate IMR and EF ≥ 40%, but received prolonged ventilation more often. Depressed LV function may be not associated with surgical or midterm mortality.

Late durability of mitral repair for ischemic versus nonischemic functional mitral regurgitation

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding long-term durability of surgical repair for functional mitral regurgitation are based on short-term data, with few comparisons of ischemic (IMR) versus non-ischemic (NIFMR) etiology.

METHODS

788 consecutive patients receiving mitral repair for functional mitral regurgitation were evaluated from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with other surgical procedures were included. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes in IMR versus NIFMR.

RESULTS

Unmatched IMR patients tended to be older men with greater comorbidities. 198 matched pairs of IMR versus NIFMR patients had similar demographics with relatively preserved ejection fraction 40±13% and end-systolic diameter 4.3±1.1cm. Concomitant coronary revascularization occurred in 70% of matched IMR patients. All patients received an annuloplasty ring, usually 24-26 mm. Heart failure class improved from 2.8 preop to 1.5 at 5 years (P<0.0001). Survival at 15 years was worse with IMR (12±3% v 43±5%, P<0.0001). At 10 years, cumulative incidence of moderate or more (>=2+) mitral regurgitation (27±4% v 26±4%, P=0.4), severe regurgitation (10±3% v 8±2%, P=0.5), and mitral reoperation (3±1% v 3±1%, P=0.4) were not different between IMR v NIFMR. Recurrent moderate regurgitation was associated with heart failure readmission but not with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity-matched patients, IMR versus NIFMR had worse survival but similar repair durability, with moderate regurgitation in 27% at 10 years and rare severe regurgitation or mitral reoperation. In selected patients with relatively preserved function, mitral repair for IMR or NIFMR can improve symptoms with durable mild regurgitation in most patients out to 10 years.

Hybrid approach for percutaneous mitral valve repair (MitraClip®) followed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) in a patient with a high risk constellation

BACKGROUND

We present a 76-year-old poly-morbid male patient suffering from severe ischemic mitral valve regurgitation. A hybrid approach was suggested by the heart team to treat his multifaceted cardiac pathologies.

METHODS

At first percutaneous mitral valve repair with the mitraclip device was performed to reduce surgical risk. This was then followed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB).

RESULTS

At day 20 Post mitraclip intervention the patient suffered gastrointestinal bleeding which needed argon plasma coagulation (APC)-therapy and multiple blood transfusions. Stage II of the hybrid procedure was executed on post-intervention day 34 by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) to left anterior descending artery (LAD). Seven days later the patient was discharged. Up to two years of follow-up, the patient is in stable condition, without recurrent cardiac symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid approach of percutaneous mitral valve repair followed by MIDCAB is an effective minimally invasive treatment for severe ischemic mitral valve regurgitation and coronary artery disease.

Multicenter experience: early outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation

BACKGROUND

Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with poor outcomes. The optimal surgical strategy for management of ischemic mitral regurgitation is still debated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early mortality and morbidity of mitral valve repair in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, observational, cohort study on prospectively collected data on 136 consecutive coronary artery bypass graft patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair between January 2016 and January 2020. Perioperative echocardiogram findings, operative procedures, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall mortality rate was 4.4%. Mitral valve repair with a low ejection fraction had a 4-fold increase in the risk of death compared to mitral valve repair with preserved ejection fraction > 30%. However, after adjusting for preoperative risk factors, the number of grafts was not an independent risk factor for mortality (odds ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.03-2.81, p = 0.84). Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative ejection fraction (odds ratio = 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-4.86, p < 0.01), preoperative left ventricular end-systolic dimension (odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-3.51, p < 0.01) and preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (odds ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-3.28, p = 0.04) were independent risk factors for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral valve repair can be performed safely concomitantly with coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate, moderately severe, and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.