Concomitant mitral repair and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: Is it warranted?
Pre-existing mitral pathology is common in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. We sought to investigate whether concurrent mitral repair confers any advantage.Methods:
From March 2004 to October 2014, 374 patients received a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. Of these, a total of 115 patients with pre-existing mitral regurgitation (MR) greater than moderate were identified and included in the analysis. Outcomes were compared between patients with concurrent mitral repair (n = 52 [45.2%]; Group A) and without repair (n = 63 [54.8%]; Group B).Results:
The mean age was 56.8 years and 25 (21.5%) were women. Patients in Group A were more likely to have undergone destination therapy (48.1% vs 11.1%; P < .001) and had a greater cardiopulmonary bypass time (125 vs 89 minutes; P < .001) than did patients in Group B. Longitudinal analysis using a generalized mixed-effects model demonstrated the odds of developing moderate or severe MR during device support were 86% lower for Group A patients (P < .001). Among those who were discharged alive, 9 (8.6%)—consisting of 1 (2.2%) in Group A and 8 (13.6%) in Group B (P = .039)—developed late right heart failure requiring a total of 13 readmissions (0.03 vs 0.15 readmissions per patient-year; P = .011). Multivariable competing risks regression revealed mitral repair to be a protective factor (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.94; P = .042) for late right heart failure occurrence.Conclusions:
Concurrent mitral repair appears to be efficacious in controlling MR after device implant. The fact that repaired patients developed late right heart failure less frequently than did patients without repair challenges the notion that concurrent mitral repair is unwarranted.