Petrone Giuseppe, Bellitti Renato, Pascarella Clemente, Nappi Gianantonio, Signoriello Giuseppe, Santé Pasquale
Cardiac Surgery Department, Monaldi Hospital, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. Electronic correspondence:
Cardiac Surgery Department, Monaldi Hospital, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
J Heart Valve Dis. 2016 Nov;25(6):716-723.
The study aim was to evaluate the long-term results in patients with degenerative mitral valve bileaflet prolapse (DMVBLP) undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) or mitral valve replacement (MVR), and to compare the consequences of survival related to each technique.
Between 2001 and 2012, a total of 421 patients underwent isolated primary surgery for DMVBLP. MVr was performed in 146 patients (34.7%), and MVR in 275 (65.3%). MVR patients were allocated to two subgroups. Subgroup A were operated on in routine fashion, preserving the posterior subvalvular apparatus, and in selected cases the anterior or both apparatus (n = 119; 43.3%). In subgroup B, surgery was performed without preservation of the subvalvular apparatus (n = 156; 56.7%).
There were no intraoperative deaths in all patient groups. The median length of follow up was 5.96 ± 3.28 years. Five patients (3.4%) in the MVr group died, while 11 in MVR subgroup A (9.2%) died, and 29 in MVR subgroup B (18.6%). Patients in the MVr group demonstrated significant and persistent postoperative decreases in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) during the follow up, while the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed a trend to improve. In MVR subgroup A, preservation of the mitral subvalvular structures resulted in a decrease in LVEDD; this resulted in a lesser worsening of the LVEF, as occurs when subvalvular structures are resected. In MVR subgroup B, the LVEDD and LVESD were each increased constantly, which resulted in a statistically significant worsening of the LVEF.
MVr in DMVBLP patients achieved a better preservation of left ventricular systolic indices than MVR, and guaranteed better shortand long-term survivals. When MVr is not feasible, it is recommended that subvalvular preservation be performed during MVR, in order to reduce the risk of early and late mortality and to improve left ventricular function.
本研究旨在评估退行性二尖瓣双叶脱垂(DMVBLP)患者接受二尖瓣修复术(MVr)或二尖瓣置换术(MVR)的长期结果,并比较两种技术相关的生存后果。
2001年至2012年期间,共有421例患者因DMVBLP接受单纯初次手术。146例患者(34.7%)接受了MVr,275例患者(65.3%)接受了MVR。MVR患者被分为两个亚组。A亚组采用常规方式手术,保留后瓣下结构,在某些情况下保留前瓣或双瓣下结构(n = 119;43.3%)。B亚组手术时未保留瓣下结构(n = 156;56.7%)。
所有患者组均无术中死亡。随访的中位时间为5.96±3.28年。MVr组有5例患者(3.4%)死亡,MVR A亚组有11例患者(9.2%)死亡,MVR B亚组有29例患者(18.6%)死亡。随访期间,MVr组患者左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)和左心室收缩末期内径(LVESD)术后持续显著下降,而左心室射血分数(LVEF)呈改善趋势。在MVR A亚组中,保留二尖瓣瓣下结构导致LVEDD下降;与切除瓣下结构时相比,这导致LVEF恶化程度较小。在MVR B亚组中,LVEDD和LVESD均持续增加,导致LVEF在统计学上显著恶化。
DMVBLP患者的MVr比MVR能更好地保留左心室收缩指标,并保证更好的短期和长期生存率。当MVr不可行时,建议在MVR期间进行瓣下结构保留,以降低早期和晚期死亡风险并改善左心室功能。