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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Kriangkrai Tantiwongkosri Eugene H. Blackstone Edward R. Nowicki Joseph F. Sabik, III Douglas R. Johnston Lars G. Svensson Tomislav Mihaljevic Permission Requests Google Scholar Articles by Gillinov, A. M. Articles by Mihaljevic, T. PubMed Articles by Gillinov, A. M. Articles by Mihaljevic, T. Related Collections Valve disease

---

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

Is Prosthetic Anuloplasty Necessary for Durable Mitral Valve Repair?

^a Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
^b Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Accepted for publication March 17, 2009.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Gillinov, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk J4-1, Cleveland, OH 44195 (Email: gillinom{at}ccf.org).

Presented at the Poster Session of the Forty-fifth Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, Jan 26–28, 2009.

Background: Because emerging percutaneous mitral valve repair may address only leaflets and not the anulus, we compared durability of mitral valve repair with and without prosthetic anuloplasty.

Methods: From 1985 to 2007, 3,057 patients underwent primary isolated posterior leaflet repair for degenerative mitral disease either with prosthetic anuloplasty (n = 2,754, 90%) or without (n = 303, 9.9%: no anuloplasty, 68; suture anuloplasty, 7; pericardial anuloplasty, 228). Most of the latter operations occurred in the early 1990s. Differences in patient characteristics were addressed by propensity-score adjustment and matching (214 pairs). In all, 3,870 echocardiograms for 1,236 patients were available for assessing mitral regurgitation after prosthetic anuloplasty and 257 in 99 patients without one. Mean follow-up for mitral valve reoperation was 4.2 ± 4.1 years, with 13,003 patient-years of data available for analysis.

Results: Early, and to a lesser degree late, postoperative mitral regurgitation was less after prosthetic anuloplasty than repair without one, and this difference persisted after risk adjustment and in propensity-matched patients (p = 0.0002). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation was 96% and 94% at 10 years after repair with versus without prosthetic anuloplasty in unmatched groups, and 97% and 96% in matched groups (p = 0.3), respectively. Unadjusted survival was greater with than without prosthetic anuloplasty (84% versus 81% at 10 years, p = 0.009), but similar after propensity adjustment and in matched pairs.

Conclusions: Mitral valve repair without a prosthetic anuloplasty was associated with accelerated return of mitral regurgitation, although risk-adjusted survival was similar. This finding has important implications for durability of percutaneous mitral repair techniques that do not address both leaflets and anulus.