Abstract： Compared with mitral valve replacement, there areseveral advantages in mitral valvuloplasty, so recently more and more sights are caught on mitral valve repair. According to different etiology, the surgeon can apply annuloplasty, triangular resection, quadrangular resection, replacement or transposition of chordae tendineae and so on to treat mitral regurgitation(MR). With the development of minimally invasive surgical technology, robotic mitral valve reconstruction evolve rapidly and percutaneous interventional therapy also commence from lab to bedside.We believe surgeons can repair MR safely and successfully in the majority of patients with proficiency in the basic techniques.
ObjectiveTo analyze clinical experience and outcomes of bileaflet preservation in mitral valve replace-ment (MVR) for patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR). MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 17 patients with severe MR who underwent MVR with bileaflet preservation in the Department of Cardiovascular surgery of Guangdong General Hospital from June 2011 to January 2013. There were 14 males and 3 females with mean age of 63.41±11.82 years (range, 38 to 82 years). There were 13 patients with atrial fibrillation. Preoperatively, 5 patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class Ⅲ, and 12 patients were in NYHA class Ⅳ. There were 7 patients with ischemic MR, 9 patients with degenerative MR, and 1 patient with rheumatic MR. ResultsMVR with bileaflet preservation was performed for all the patients. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed for 4 patients. Eleven patients received bioprosthetic MVR, and 6 patients received mechanical MVR. There was no in-hospital death, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome or left ventricular rupture. All the 17 patients were followed up for a mean duration of 16.44±5.02 months (range, 2 to 25 months). During follow-up, 1 patient died of severe paravalvular leak 2 months after surgery. All the other patients had good mitral valve function. None of the patients had anticoagulation or prosthetic valve related complication. Patient's heart function was significantly improved. Eleven patients were in NYHA functional class Ⅰ, 4 patients were in NYHA class Ⅱ, and 1 patient was in NYHA class Ⅲ. Cardiothoracic ratio, left atrial dimension, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and left ventricular end-systole dimension postoperatively and during follow-up were significantly smaller than preoperative values. Postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower than preoperative LVEF(50.94%±8.78% vs. 55.31%±10.44%, P=0.04), but LVEF during follow-up was not statistically different from preoperative LVEF(55.31%±10.44% vs. 56.13%±9.67%, P=0.73), and LVEF during follow-up was significantly higher than postoperative LVEF(56.13%±9.67% vs. 50.94%±8.78%, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference between postoperative mitral pressure half-time (PHT)and PHT during follow-up (95.06±19.00 ms vs. 94.56±19.19 ms, P=0.91). ConclusionMVR with bileaflet preservation is a safe and effective surgical technique for patients with severe MR, and can significantly improve postoperative left ventricular remodeling and function.
Abstract： Objective To summarize our experience and clinical outcomes of preservation of posterior leaflet and subvalvular structures in mitral valve replacement（MVR）. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 1 035 patients who underwent MVR in Beijing An Zhen Hospital from January 2006 to March 2011. There were 562 male patients and 473 female patients with their age of 37-78（53.84±13.13）years old. There were 712 patients with rheumatic valvular heart disease and 323 patients with degenerative valve disease, 389 patients with mitral stenosis and 646 patients with mitral regurgitation. No patient had coronary artery disease in this group. For 457 patients in non-preservation group, bothleaflets and corresponding chordal excision was performed, while for 578 patients in preservation group, posterior leafletand subvalvular structures were preserved. There was no statistical difference in demographic and preoperative clinical characteristics between the two groups. Postoperative mortality and morbidity, and left ventricular size and function were compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistical difference in postoperative mortality（2.63% vs. 1.21%, P =0.091）and morbidity （8.53% vs. 7.44%, P=0.519）between the non-preservation group and preservation group, except that the rate of left ventricular rupture of non-preservation group was significantly higher than that of preservation group（1.09% vs. 0.00%, P=0.012）. The average left ventricular end-diastolic dimension （LVEDD）measured by echocardiography 6 months after surgery decreased in both groups, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The average left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 6 months after surgery was significantly improved compared with preoperative average LVEF in both groups. The average LVEF 6 months after surgery in patients with mitral regurgitation in the preservation group was significantly higher than that in non-preservation group （56.00%±3.47% vs. 53.00%±3.13%，P =0.000）, and there was no statistical difference in the average LVEF 6 months after surgery in patients with mitral stenosis between the two groups（57.00%±5.58% vs. 56.00%±4.79%，P =0.066）. Conclusion Preservation of posterior leaflet and subvalvular structures in MVR is a safe and effective surgical technique to reduce the risk of left ventricle rupture and improve postoperative left ventricular function．
Objective To summarize the experiences of surgical treatment for partial atrioventricular canal defect. Methods The data of 66 patients of surgical treatment for partial atrioventricular canal defect from January 1984 to December 2007 were analyzed retrospectively. The cleft of mitral valve presented in all of those patients. There were 52 cases with direct suture on cleft, 8 cases with direct suture with commissurroplasty, 1 case with posterior leaflet plasty, 3 cases with direct suture St.Jude ring and 2 cases mitral valve replacement. The ostium primum atrial septal defects were repaired with patches of Dacron in 12 cases and autologous pericardium in 54 cases. Coronary sinus was situated on the left atrium in 5 and ostium primum atrial septal defects were repaired in Kirklin’s way; the others in MeGoon’way. Meanwhile other heart abnormalities were done. Results There were two early deaths (3.03%), one patient died of heart arrhythmia and one patient died of respiratory failure. Complications of total A-V block was in 2 cases. Both of them were replanted with pace makers.52 cases were followed up, followup time was 5 months to 22 years(mean follow-up 15 years). All patients had better life. Four patients have been re -operated for different reasons post primary operation. One had good result after re-mitral valve replacement. One case died of acute renal failure and the other two died of low cardiac output syndrome. Conclusions Early operation is definitely recommended when the diagnosis is confirmed. Because the structure or function of mitral valve is saved, pulmonary hypertension is avoided and the mortality is lower in the future. The key points of operation are to rectify the mitral insufficiency, repair ostium primum atrial septal defects and avoid atrioventricular block. The patients of mild regurgitation of mitral valve have good results. Provided in those have more than middle regurgitation of mitral valve then their longterm results are poor.
ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes of mitral valve replacement (MVR) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with CABG alone for patients with coronary artery disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). MethodsA systematic literature search for studies which were published from January 1990 to August 2013 from PubMed, Cochrane Library, China Academic Journals Full-text Database, Wanfang Data, and VIP Journal Database and compared CABG+MVR and CABG alone for IMR patients was performed. Quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed by Jada scale. Quality of case control studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. ResultsSix clinical trials including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 case control studies were included in this study. Jadad scale for both 2 randomized controlled trials was 5 points and NOS for all the 4 case controlled studies was 8 points. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in early postoperative mortality between the 2 groups[randomized controlled trials:RR=1.69, 95% CI (0.28, 10.10), P=0.57;case controlled studies:OR=0.48, 95% CI (0.21, 1.13), P=0.09]. There was no statistical difference in 1-year survival rate between the 2 groups[randomized controlled trials:RR=1.00, 95% CI (0.93, 1.08), P=0.92;case controlled studies:OR=1.72, 95% CI (0.60, 4.95), P=0.32]. There was no statistical difference in 5-year survival rate between the 2 groups[OR=1.12, 95% CI (0.68, 1.83), P=0.66]. LVEF of CABG+MVR patients was significantly higher than that of CABG alone patients[MD=1.38, 95% CI (0.17, 2.59), P=0.03]. Postoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of CABG+MVR patients was significantly better than that of CABG alone patients[MD=-0.85, 95% CI (-1.14, -0.56), P < 0.01]. ConclusionCompared with CABG alone, MVR combined with CABG cannot significantly increase postoperative survival rate of the patients, but can improve postoperative heart function recovery and quality of life.
ObjectiveTo summarize mid- to long-term results of edge to edge mitral repair for mitral regurgitation (MR). MethodsClinical data of 31 patients who underwent edge to edge mitral repair in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from June 2002 to June 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. There were 13 male and 18 female patients with their age of 14-77 (43±21) years. Clinical and echocardiographic data were analyzed. ResultsThree patients died in hospital,and 28 patients finished mid- to long-term follow-up for 5-10 years. During follow-up, 1 patient died of acute decompensated heart failure in the 2nd year after discharge. Two patients had recurrent moderate MR, and 6 patients had recurrent moderate-to-severe MR including 3 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement in the 5th,6th and 7th postoperative year respectively because of severe MR. Five-year reoperation-free rate was 88.9% (24/27). Five-year mortality was 3.6% (1/28). The incidence of recurrent moderate or severe MR within 5 postoperative years was 28.6% (8/28). ConclusionFor complex MR or as an emergency substitute strategy for failed routine mitral valvuloplasty, edgeto- edge mitral repair can produce good mid- to long-term outcomes except for Carpentier Ⅲb MR.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of different surgical strategies for moderate functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on patients' prognosis.MethodsA total of 118 AVR patients, including 84 males and 34 females, aged 58.1±12.4 years, who were complicated with moderate FMR were retrospectively recruited. Patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment strategy of mitral valve: a group A (no intervention, n=11), a group B (mitral valve repair, n=51) and a group C (mitral valve replacement, n=56). The primary endpoint was the early and mid-term survival of the patients, and the secondary endpoint was the improvement of FMR.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 29.5 months. Five patients died perioperatively, all of whom were from the group C. Early postoperative FMR improvement rates in the group A and group B were 90.9% and 94.1% (P=0.694). The mid-term mortality in the three groups were 0.0%, 5.9% and 3.9%, respectively (P=0.264), while the incidences of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 0.0%, 9.8% and 17.7%, respectively (P=0.230). Improvements of FMR in the group A and group B were 100.0% and 94.3% at the mid-term follow-up (P>0.05).ConclusionFor patients receiving AVR with moderate FMR, conservative treatment or concurrent repair of mitral valve may be more reasonable, while mitral valve replacement may increase the incidence of early and mid-term adverse events.