Is repair preferable to replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation?

Objective: This study was undertaken to compare mitral valve repair and replacement as treatments for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Methods: From 1985 through 1997, a total of 482 patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation underwent either valve repair (n = 397) or valve replacement (n = 85). Patients more likely (P less than or equal to .01) to undergo repair had functional mural regurgitation or coronary revascularization with an internal thoracic artery graft; those more likely to receive valve replacement were in higher New York Heart Association functional classes or underwent emergency operations. These factors were used for multivariable propensity matching. Risk factors for early and late death were identified by multivariable, multiphase hazard function analysis. Results: Within the propensity-matched better-risk group, survivals after valve replacement were 81%, 56%, and 36% at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, but survivals after repair were 94%, 82%, and 58% at these intervals (P = .08). In contrast, within the poor-risk group, survivals after repair and replacement were similar (P = .4). Risk factors (P less than or equal to .01) included older age, higher functional class, greater wall motion abnormality, and renal dysfunction. Approximately 70% of patients were predicted to benefit from repair; the benefit lessened or was negated if an internal thoracic artery graft was not used, if a lateral wall motion abnormality was present, or if the mitral regurgitation jet pattern was complex. Freedom from repair failure at 5 years was 91%. Conclusion: Late survival is poor after surgery for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Most patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation benefit from mitral valve repair. In the most complex, high-risk settings, survivals after repair and replacement are similar.