Ischemic mitral valve reconstruction and replacement: Comparison of long-term survival and complications

Objective: This study reviews the 223 consecutive mitral valve operations for ischemic mitral insufficiency performed at New York University Medical Center between January 1976 and January 1996. The results for mitral valve reconstruction are compared with those for prosthetic mitral valve replacement. Methods: From January 1976 to January 1996, 223 patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency underwent mitral valve reconstruction (n = 152) or prosthetic mitral valve replacement (n = 71). Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 89% of cases of mitral reconstruction and 80% of cases of prosthetic replacement. In the group undergoing reconstruction, 77% had valvuloplasty with a ring annuloplasty and 23% had valvuloplasty with suture annuloplasty. In the group undergoing prosthetic replacement, 82% of patients received bioprostheses and 18% received mechanical prostheses. Results: Follow-up was 93% complete (median 14.6 mo, range 0-219 mo). Thirty-day mortality was 10% for mitral reconstruction and 20% for prosthetic replacement. The short-term mortality was higher among patients in New York Heart Association functional class IV than among those in classes I to III (odds ratio 5.75, confidence interval 1.25-26.5) and was reduced among patients with angina relative to those without angina (odds ratio 0.26, confidence interval 0.05-1.2). The 30-day death or complication rate was similarly elevated among patients in functional class IV (odds ratio 5.53; confidence interval 1.23-25.04). Patients with mitral valve reconstruction had lower short-term complication or death rates than did patients with prosthetic valve replacement (odds ratio 0.43, confidence interval 0.20-0.90). Eighty-two percent of patients with mitral valve reconstruction had no insufficiency or only trace insufficiency during the long-term follow-up period. Five-year complication-free survivals were 64% (confidence interval 54%-74%a) for patients undergoing mitral valve reconstruction and 47% (confidence interval 33%-60%) for patients undergoing prosthetic valve replacement. Results of a series of statistical analyses suggest that outcome was linked primarily to preoperative New York Heart Association functional class. Conclusions: Initial mortalities were similar among patients undergoing prosthetic replacement and valve reconstruction. Poor outcome was primarily related to preexisting comorbidities. Patients undergoing valve reconstruction had fewer valve-related complications, Valve reconstruction resulted in excellent durability and freedom from complications. These findings suggest that mitral valve reconstruction should be considered for appropriate patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency.