Advertisement

“RFEF” and mitral regurgitation jet direction: surrogate markers for likelihood of left ventricle reverse remodeling in patients with moderate chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation

  • Sumbul Siddiqui
  • Amber MalhotraEmail author
  • Komal Shah
  • Pankaj Garg
  • Pranav Sharma
  • Vivek Wadhawa
  • Kartik Patel
  • Anand Shukla
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical management of moderate chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR) is controversial. We propose a simplified classification of moderate CIMR based on regurgitant fraction (RF), ejection fraction (EF), and jet direction (central/eccentric) to predict left ventricle (LV) remodeling and identify patient subsets which need mitral valve (MV) repair along with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods

In this prospective controlled study (n = 210), patients with moderate CIMR were randomized. Group I (n = 106) underwent off-pump CABG alone while group II (n = 104) underwent CABG + MV repair. The product of regurgitation fraction and ejection fraction (“RFEF”) was taken as a surrogate for myocardial reserve. The cut-off defined was 0.12; patients with RFEF ≤ 0.12 were categorized as the “bad” and those with RFEF > 0.12 as the “good” subset. The patients were further subdivided on the basis of their mitral regurgitation (MR) jet direction (central/eccentric). The percentage improvement in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and MR grade were recorded 6 monthly.

Results

Analysis of the continuous variable “RFEF” in conjunction with jet direction was performed. At 12 months, the patient in good subset with central direction of jet showed improvement in LVESVI % in both groups (p = 0.428), while the patients in bad subset with eccentric direction of jet showed significantly higher improvement in LVESVI %, group II as compared to group I (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

This study thus identifies “RFEF” as a surrogate for reverse remodeling capacity. In association with MR jet direction, predicts the subset of moderate CIMR patients most likely to have maximum LVESVI and MR grade reduction.

Keywords

Ischemic mitral regurgitation Coronary artery disease Heart failure 

Notes

Financial support

This work was supported by U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center itself and received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study does not involve the use of any animal. And in case of patients, all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent has been taken from patients and none have been forced to be a part of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gupta R, Mohan I, Narula J. Trends in coronary heart disease epidemiology in India. Ann Glob Health. 2016;82:307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Puskas JD, Williams WH, Duke PG, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: a prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spartera M, Galderisi M, Mele D, et al. Role of cardiac dyssynchrony and resynchronization therapy in functional mitral regurgitation. EurHeart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:471–80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magne J, Sénéchal M, Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P. Ischemic mitral regurgitation: a complex multifaceted disease. Cardiology. 2009;112:244–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carpentier A. Cardiac valve surgery-the “French correction”. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1983;86:323–37.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:2440–92.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaasch WH, Meyer TE. Left ventricular response to mitral regurgitation implications for management. Circulation. 2008;118:2298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, et al. Effects of off-pump and on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 1 year. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malhotra A, Sharma P, Garg P, Bishnoi A, Kothari J, Pujara J. Ring annuloplasty for ischemic mitral regurgitation a single center experience. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2014;22:781-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malhotra A, Ananthanarayanan C, Wadhawa V, et al. OPCABG for moderate CIMR in elderly patients: a superior option? Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;33:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yokoyama T, Baumgartner FJ, Gheissari A, Capouya ER, Panagiotides GP, Declusin RJ. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary bypass in high-risk subgroups. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70:1546–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levine HJ, Gaasch AWH. Ratio of regurgitant volume to end-diastolic volume: a major determinant of ventricular response to surgical correction of chronic volume overload. Am J Cardiol. 1983;52:406–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fioretti P, Roelandt J, Tirtaman C, Bos E, Serruys PW. Value of the regurgitant volume to end diastolic volume ratio to predict the regression of left ventricular dimensions after valve replacement in aortic insufficiency. Eur Heart J. 1987;8:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ueno T, Sakata R, Iguro Y, et al. Left ventricular reconstruction with or without mitral annuloplasty. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;15:165–70.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, et al. Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trento A, Goland S, De Robertis MA,. Czer LSC. COUNTERPOINT: efficacy of adding mitral valve restrictive annuloplasty to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate ischemic mitral valve regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:286–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aklog L, Filsoufi F, Flores KQ, et al. Does coronary artery bypass grafting alone correct moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation? Circulation. 2001;104:I68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryden T, Bech-Hanssen O, Brandrup-Wognesen G, Nilsson F, Svensson S, Jeppsson A. The importance of grade 2 ischemic mitral regurgitation in coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;20:276–81.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindeboom JE, Jaarsma W, Kelder JC, Morshuis WJ, Visser CA. Mitral valve repair is not always needed in patients with functional mitral regurgitation undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic valve replacement. Neth Heart J. 2005;13:175–80.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bax JJ, Braun J, Somer ST, et al. Restrictive annuloplasty and coronary revascularization in ischemic mitral regurgitation results in reverse left ventricular remodeling. Circulation 2004; 110: II-103–II-108.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lam BK, Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, et al. Importance of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:462–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grossi EA, Crooke GA, DiGiorgi PL, et al. Impact of moderate functional mitral insufficiency in patients undergoing surgical revascularization. Circulation. 2006;114:I-573–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, et al. Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Michler RE, Smith PK, Parides MK, et al. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1932–41.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chan KM, Punjabi PP, Flather M, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery with or without mitral valve annuloplasty in moderate functional ischemic mitral regurgitation: final results of the Randomized Ischemic Mitral Evaluation (RIME) trial. Circulation. 2012;126:2502–10.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fattouch K, Guccione F, Sampognaro R, et al. POINT: efficacy of adding mitral valve restrictive annuloplasty to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate ischemic mitral valve regurgitation: a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:278–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dion R. Ischemic mitral regurgitation: when and how should it be corrected? J Heart Valve Dis. 1993;5:536–43.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grigioni F, Enriquez-Sarano M, Zehr KJ, Bailey KR, Tajik AJ. Ischemic mitral regurgitation long-term outcome and prognostic implications with quantitative doppler assessment. Circulation. 2001;103:1759–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Penicka M, Linkova H, Lang O, et al. Predictors of improvement of unrepaired moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing elective isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2009;120:1474–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu HY, Su MY, Liao TY, Peng HH, Lin FY, Tseng WY. Functional mitral regurgitation in chronic ischemic coronary artery disease: analysis of geometric alterations of mitral apparatus with magnetic resonance imaging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;128:543–51.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beeri R, Yosefy C, Guerrero JL, et al. Early repair of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation reverses left ventricular remodeling a functional and molecular study. Circulation 2007; 116]:I-288–I-293.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gelsomino S, Lorusso R, Caciolli S, et al. Insights on left ventricular and valvular mechanisms of recurrent ischemic mitral regurgitation after restrictive annuloplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:507–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gelsomino S, Lorusso R, Capecchi I, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling after undersized mitral ring annuloplasty in patients with ischemic regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1319–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kumanohoso T, Otsuji Y, Yoshifuku S, et al. Mechanism of higher incidence of ischemic mitral regurgitation in patients with inferior myocardial infarction: quantitative analysis of left ventricular and mitral valve geometry in 103 patients with prior myocardial infarction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yiu SF, Enriquez-Sarano M, Tribouilloy C, Seward JB, Jamil Tajik A. Determinants of the degree of functional mitral regurgitation in patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction: a quantitative clinical study. Circulation. 2000;102:1400–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Magne J, Pibarot P, Dagenais F, Hachicha Z, Dumesnil JG, Sénéchal M. Preoperative posterior leaflet angle accurately predicts outcome after restrictive mitral valve annuloplasty for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Circulation. 2007;115:782–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumbul Siddiqui
    • 1
  • Amber Malhotra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Komal Shah
    • 2
  • Pankaj Garg
    • 1
  • Pranav Sharma
    • 1
  • Vivek Wadhawa
    • 1
  • Kartik Patel
    • 1
  • Anand Shukla
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgeryU. N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center (Affiliated to BJ Medical College, Ahmedabad)AhmedabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of ResearchU. N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center (Affiliated to BJ Medical College, Ahmedabad)AhmedabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyU. N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology and Research Center (Affiliated to BJ Medical College, Ahmedabad)AhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations