کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2954410 | 1577472 | 2007 | 11 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |

ObjectivesThe aim of this work was to determine whether mitral valve (MV) annuloplasty benefits patients with moderate/severe (3+/4+) functional ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).BackgroundMitral regurgitation is a strong predictor of poor outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy; whether correcting it at the time of CABG improves outcomes is less certain.MethodsFrom 1991 to 2003, 390 patients with 3+/4+ ischemic MR had CABG with (n = 290) or without (n = 100) MV annuloplasty. Groups were propensity-matched using demographics, extent of coronary disease, regional wall motion, and quantitative electrocardiography. Survival, echocardiographic severity of MR, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were compared.ResultsOne-, 5-, and 10-year survival was 88%, 75%, and 47% after CABG alone and 92%, 74%, and 39% after CABG + MV annuloplasty (p = 0.6). Mortality was increased in patients with severe lateral wall motion abnormalities (p = 0.05), ST-segment elevation in lateral leads (p < 0.004), and higher QRS voltage sum (p < 0.0001). Patients undergoing CABG alone were more likely to have 3+/4+ postoperative MR than those undergoing CABG + MV annuloplasty (48% vs. 12% at 1 year, p < 0.0001). The NYHA functional class substantially improved in both groups (p < 0.001) and remained improved; at 5 years, 23% of patients having CABG + mitral annuloplasty and 25% having CABG alone were in NYHA functional class III/IV.ConclusionsAlthough CABG + MV annuloplasty reduces postoperative MR and improves early symptoms compared with CABG alone, it does not improve long-term functional status or survival in patients with severe functional ischemic MR. The MV annuloplasty in this setting, without addressing fundamental ventricular pathology, is insufficient to improve long-term clinical outcomes.
Journal: Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Volume 49, Issue 22, 5 June 2007, Pages 2191–2201