Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):1841-1848.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.12.071. Epub 2018 Dec 29.

Mitral valve repair for severe mitral valve regurgitation during left ventricular assist device implantation.

Author information

1
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
2
Zena and Michael Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
3
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. Electronic address: anelechi.anyanwu@mountsinai.org.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The management of severe mitral regurgitation (MR) at the time of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is controversial. We adopted an approach of systematic repair of severe MR at the time of LVAD implantation and report our experience.

METHODS:

We performed mitral valve repair (MVr) on 78 consecutive patients with severe MR undergoing LVAD implantation at our institution between 2013 and 2017. We compared data on these patients to 28 historical controls with severe MR from the immediate preceding period between 2011 and 2013 where the MR was not treated, using Cox modeling and propensity score methods. Median follow-up time was 17.7 months.

RESULTS:

Patients who underwent MVr were younger than those who did not (non-MVr group) (55 vs 63 years; P = .006), but otherwise had similar preoperative characteristics. The incidence of 30-day mortality (2.6% vs 3.6%; P = .78) and other early major adverse events was similar in both groups. At 3 months, no patient in the MVr group had more than mild MR compared with 7 patients (29%) in the non-MVr group (P < .001). Cardiac catheterization done 3 to 6 months after surgery showed tendency toward greater reduction from preoperative pulmonary artery systolic pressure in the MVr group compared with the non-MVr group (-20 vs -13 mm Hg; P = .10). The cumulative incidence of readmission due to congestive heart failure at 2 years was lower in the MVr group than in non-MVr group (7.1% vs 19.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.76; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Concurrent MVr at the time of LVAD implantation can be done safely without increase in perioperative adverse events. MVr may be associated with better reduction in severity of MR and may have potential benefit in terms of reduction in readmissions for heart failure.

KEYWORDS:

left ventricular assist device; mitral regurgitation; mitral valve repair

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center