The outcome of mitral repair for degenerative versus ischemic mitral regurgitation using a single complete ring

Background: The durability of surgical repair for degenerative versus ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) is thought to be markedly different. We, therefore, examined late outcomes and durability for mitral repair in a large cohort of patients receiving a single annuloplasty device.

Methods: A total of 749 consecutive patients receiving mitral repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) or ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) were evaluated from a prospective database. Patients with tricuspid or maze surgery were included. Papillary muscle rupture and mixed valve etiologies were excluded. Outcomes were compared for IMR versus DMR.

Results: Patients with DMR were younger and less urgent. Patients with IMR had mean end-systolic diameter 4.5 ± 1.1 cm. All patients received the same complete semirigid annuloplasty device with median ring size 32 mm for DMR and 24 mm for IMR. New York Heart Association failure class improved from 2.8 to 1.5 (p < .001). Patients with DMR had lower operative mortality (1/384 [0.3%] vs. 26/365 [7%], p < .0001) and shorter length of stay. A 15-year survival was better with DMR (63% ± 3% vs. 13% ± 2%, p < .001). At 10 years, the incidence of recurrent ≥2+ MR (10% ± 2% vs. 16% ± 2%, p = .16) was not significantly different. Predictors of recurrent ≥2+ MR were female gender (odds ratio [OR]: 3.0 (1.9-4.8, p < .0001), and prior operation (OR: 2.4 [1.3-4.5], p = .02) but not IMR (OR: 1.4 [0.9-2.3], p = .15).

Conclusions: In this series, where patients with IMR had relatively preserved ventricular dimensions, the primary determinants of late recurrent MR were female gender and prior operation but not IMR versus DMR. Selected patients with IMR can obtain relatively durable mitral repair despite higher operative risk and lower survival compared to DMR.