Uchikawa Shin-Ichiro, Ohtaki Eiji, Sumiyoshi Tetsuya, Hosoda Saichi, Kasegawa Hitoshi
First Department of Internal Medicine, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-1-1 Asahi, 390-8621, Matsumoto, Japan.
Heart Vessels. 2004 Jul;19(4):172-8. doi: 10.1007/s00380-004-0763-y.
Ischemic cardiomyopathy complicated by severe mitral regurgitation (MR) has a poor prognosis. In such cases, whether mitral valve repair for MR improves the prognosis of survival remains unclear. In this study, 50 patients diagnosed with ischemic cardiomyopathy at our hospital between August 1991 and August 1996 were studied to examine the long-term prognosis and factors determining the prognosis. Among 17 patients with the complication of severe MR, 11 underwent mitral valve repair (repair group) and 6 did not (nonrepair group). Among the 33 patients without MR, 15 underwent revascularization (revascularization group) and 18 received medical treatment alone (medical group). Patients with MR showed significantly poorer baseline activities of daily living (ADL) [New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or above: MR(+) vs MR(-) = 14 vs 8; P = 0.0001] and survival rate [MR(+) vs MR(-); log rank = 3.8, P = 0.05]. In contrast, patients in whom mitral valve repair was actively performed to resolve MR had favorable outcomes for both ADL (NYHA class improved from 3.9 +/- 0.3 to 2.7 +/- 1.0; P = 0.0004) and survival rate (MV repair vs nonrepair: long rank = 10.1, P = 0.0015). In addition, among patients without MR, the revascularization group showed more favorable results in terms of ADL (NYHA class improved from 3.5 +/- 0.7 to 2.5 +/- 0.8; P = 0.0059) and survival rate (revascularization vs medical: log rank = 3.7, P = 0.05), irrespective of improvement of left ventricular function. When the factors determining the prognosis for ischemic cardiomyopathy were examined by multivariate analysis, whether or not revascularization was conducted, the presence or absence of mitral regurgitation, and if present, whether or not mitral valve repair was performed were identified as independent factors determining the prognosis (revascularization: hazard ratio = 0.121, P = 0.012; absence of MR: hazard ratio = 0.104, P = 0.050; mitral valve repair: hazard ratio = 0.018, P = 0.005). These results showed that revascularization should be conducted as actively as possible in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy; in addition, for those patients with mitral regurgitation, mitral valve repair should be conducted actively to relieve it.
缺血性心肌病合并严重二尖瓣反流(MR)的预后较差。在这种情况下,二尖瓣修复术能否改善生存预后仍不明确。本研究对1991年8月至1996年8月期间在我院诊断为缺血性心肌病的50例患者进行了研究,以探讨其长期预后及影响预后的因素。在17例合并严重MR的患者中,11例行二尖瓣修复术(修复组),6例未行手术(非修复组)。在33例无MR的患者中,15例行血运重建术(血运重建组),18例仅接受药物治疗(药物组)。合并MR的患者基线日常生活活动能力(ADL)明显较差[纽约心脏协会(NYHA)III级及以上:MR(+)组与MR(-)组分别为14例和8例;P = 0.0001],生存率也较低[MR(+)组与MR(-)组;对数秩检验= 3.8,P = 0.05]。相比之下,积极进行二尖瓣修复以解决MR的患者在ADL(NYHA分级从3.9±0.3改善至2.7±1.0;P = 0.0004)和生存率方面均有良好结果(二尖瓣修复术组与非修复组:对数秩检验= 10.1,P = 0.0015)。此外,在无MR的患者中,血运重建组在ADL(NYHA分级从3.5±0.7改善至2.5±0.8;P = 0.0059)和生存率方面显示出更有利的结果(血运重建术组与药物组:对数秩检验= 3.7,P = 0.05),与左心室功能的改善无关。通过多因素分析探讨缺血性心肌病预后的决定因素时,是否进行血运重建、是否存在二尖瓣反流以及若存在反流是否进行二尖瓣修复被确定为决定预后的独立因素(血运重建:风险比= 0.121,P = 0.012;无MR:风险比= 0.104,P = 0.050;二尖瓣修复:风险比= 0.018,P = 0.005)。这些结果表明,缺血性心肌病患者应尽可能积极地进行血运重建;此外,对于那些合并二尖瓣反流的患者,应积极进行二尖瓣修复以缓解反流。