HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Nishant D. Patel Lois U. Nwakanma Ashish S. Shah John V. Conte Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Prucz, R. B. Articles by Conte, J. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Prucz, R. B. Articles by Conte, J. V. Related Collections Coronary disease Valve disease

---

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

The Impact of Surgical Ventricular Restoration on Mitral Valve Regurgitation

Division of Cardiac Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

Accepted for publication April 23, 2008.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Conte, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Heart & Lung Transplantation, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Blalock 618, Baltimore, MD 21287-4618 (Email: jconte{at}csurg.jhmi.jhu.edu).

Presented at the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association, Bonita Springs, FL, Nov 7–10, 2007.

Background: Surgical management of functional mitral regurgitation (MR) in ischemic cardiomyopathy is controversial. Surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) decreases left ventricular volume and may improve MR severity. We assessed the impact of SVR on the degree of MR.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with ejection fractions (EF) < 0.35 who underwent SVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (SVR+CABG) over a 3-year period. Patients with concomitant mitral valve procedures were excluded. Patients with EF < 0.35 who had CABG alone during the same time period served as control. Mitral regurgitation was graded 0 to 4+ by echocardiogram and ventriculogram. Outcomes included survival, MR grade, and cardiac function.

Results: Thirty-nine patients received SVR+CABG: 3% (1 of 39) had 4+, 10% (4 of 39) had 3+, 51% (20 of 39) had 2+, and 36% (14 of 39) had 0 to 1+ MR. Thirty-five patients with a similar MR distribution underwent CABG alone. Operative mortality was 2.6% for SVR+CABG and 5.7% for CABG patients (p = 0.62). At follow-up, MR grade decreased by 57% (2.24 ± 0.5 to 1.24 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) for the SVR+CABG group compared to 12% (2.25 ± 0.5 to 2.00 ± 0.9, p = 0.27) for the CABG alone group. SVR+CABG patients had significantly less MR than CABG patients at follow-up (1.24 ± 0.9 vs 2.00 ± 0.9, p = 0.007), with 15 patients improving to 0 to 1+ MR postoperatively versus 6 patients in the CABG cohort (p = 0.02). Improvement in postoperative EF was significantly greater after SVR+CABG (0.13% vs 7%, p = 0.04). Three-year survival was 85% for SVR+CABG and 72% for CABG patients (p = 0.39).

Conclusions: SVR+CABG demonstrated greater reduction in MR severity at follow-up than CABG alone. Decreased left ventricular volumes and improved papillary muscle orientation likely contribute to decreased MR after SVR.