Mitral Valve Repair or Replacement for Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation - CTSN: MV Repair vs. Replacement
The goal of the trial was to compare mitral valve repair compared with mitral valve replacement among patients with severe ischemic (functional) mitral regurgitation.
Contribution to the Literature: While this trial showed no difference in 2-year mortality, moderate to severe mitral regurgitation was markedly increased with mitral valve repair.
Patients with severe ischemic (functional) mitral regurgitation were randomized to mitral valve repair with mitral annuloplasty (n = 126) versus mitral valve replacement with chordal sparing (n = 125).
Mitral valve repair was performed with a rigid or semi-rigid mitral annuloplasty ring.
Mitral valve replacement included preservation of the subvalvular complex by the chordal sparing technique. The choice of a bioprosthetic vs. mechanical valve was left to surgeon discretion; however, a bioprosthetic valve was most commonly used.
- Total number of enrollees: 251
- Duration of follow-up: 2 years
- Mean patient age: 69 years
- Percentage female: 39%
- Percentage diabetics: 38%
- Approximately 75% of patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting
- Patients undergoing open heart surgery for treatment of severe ischemic (functional) mitral regurgitation with or without coronary artery bypass grafting
The primary outcome, mean left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 1 year, was 55 ± 25 ml/m2 in the repair group vs. 61 ± 32 ml/m2 in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, −6.6 and −6.8 ml per square meter, respectively)
- Mortality at 2 years: 19% in the repair group vs. 23% in the replacement group (p = 0.42)
- Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation at 2 years: 59% in the repair group vs. 3.8% in the replacement group (p < 0.001)
- Serious adverse event related to heart failure: 24% in the repair group vs. 15% in the replacement group (p = 0.05)
- Readmission for a cardiovascular event: 48% in the repair group vs. 32% in the replacement group (p = 0.01)
- LVESVI at 2 years: 53 cc/m2 in the repair group vs. 61 cc/m2 in the replacement group
- LV ejection fraction at 2 years: 43% in the repair group vs. 38% in the replacement group
Among individuals with severe ischemic (functional) mitral regurgitation, mitral valve repair with mitral annuloplasty vs. mitral valve replacement was associated with similar mortality and LV geometry/function at 2 years. However, patients who underwent mitral valve repair had a marked increase in moderate or severe mitral regurgitation and serious adverse events related to heart failure at 2 years vs. mitral valve replacement.
This trial has important implications since mitral valve repair is a less morbid procedure than mitral valve replacement; however, it results in less durable mitral valve function. Future research may help to understand the mechanisms responsible for progressive mitral regurgitation after mitral annuloplasty. These results do not apply to patients with primary (degenerative mitral regurgitation).
Goldstein D, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, et al., on behalf of the CTSN. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2015;Nov 9:[Epub ahead of print].
Acker MA, Parides MK, Perrault LP, et al., on behalf of the CTSN. Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2014;370:23-32.
Presented by Dr. Daniel Goldstein at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, Orlando, FL, November 9, 2015.
< Back to Listings