Comparative Outcomes of Mitral Valve Annuloplasty With Support Rings and Autopericardial Strip in Patients With Degenerative Diseases

Objective: To compare the outcomes of mitral valve annuloplasty with support rings and that of the current technique employing an autopericardial strip in patients with degenerative diseases (patent RU2774033C1, June 14, 2022).

Materials and methods: The study included 105 patients with degenerative mitral valve disease who underwent surgery in our clinic from May 2010 to January 2020. Depending on the conduit type, the patients were divided into two groups. Group I included 53 patients who underwent mitral valve annuloplasty with an autopericardial strip. Group II included 52 patients who underwent annuloplasty with a support ring. Male patients predominated in both groups: 59.6% and 57.7%, respectively. The mean age of patients was 54.9 ± 9.5 years (36–78 years) in group I and 54.8 ± 10.05 years (32–70 years) in group II. In most cases, tri- and quadrangular resections of the P2 segment were performed, and in some cases, neochords were implanted to the A2 segment.

Results: There was 1 death in group II as a result of progressive cardiovascular and multiple organ failure while in group I no hospital mortality was reported. At the discharge, 81.1% of patients in group I and 59.6% of patients in group II had no mitral regurgitation.

Conclusions: The current technique of mitral valve annuloplasty with an autopericardial strip in patients with degenerative diseases allows for adequate stabilization of the annulus fibrosus and improves the surgical outcomes in selected patients. With our proposed method of mitral valve annuloplasty, the suitable strip length can be chosen for each patient.

1. Chang BC, Youn YN, Ha JW, Lim SH, Hong YS, Chung N. Long-term clinical results of mitral valvuloplasty using flexible and rigid rings: a prospective and randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133(4):995–1003. PMID: 17382640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.10.023

2. Carpentier A, Chauvaud S, Fabiani JN, et al. Reconstructive surgery of mitral valve incompetence: ten-year appraisal. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1980;79(3):338–348. PMID: 7354634. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5223(19)37942-5

3. David TE, Burns RJ, Bacchus CM, Druck MN. Mitral valve replacement for mitral regurgitation with and without preservation of chordae tendineae. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1984;88(5 Pt 1):718–725. PMID: 6492840. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5223(19)35439-x

4. Goldman ME, Mora F, Guarino T, Fuster V, Mindich BP. Mitral valvuloplasty is superior to valve replacement for preservation of left ventricular function: an intraoperative two-dimensional echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(3):568–575. PMID: 3624663. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(87)80199-7

5. Chua YL, Pang PY, Yap YP, Abdul Salam ZH, Chen YT. Chordal reconstruction versus leaflet resection for repair of degenerative posterior mitral leaflet prolapse. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;22(2):90–97. PMID: 26727025. PMCID: PMC4936210. https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.15-00322

6. Sidiki AI, Lishchuk AN, Faibushevich AG, Ivanov DV, Haji HM. A comparison of pericardial and prosthetic annuloplasty in mitral valve repair. Journal of New Medical Technologies, E-edition. 2020;(1):22–29. (In Russ.).

7. Sidiki AI, Lishchuk AN, Fajbushevich AG. A comparison of rigid and semi-rigid annuloplasty rings in mitral valve repair. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2020;15(3–2):15– 19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25881/bpnmsc.2020.25.11.003

8. Shikhverdiev NN, Averkin II, Marchenko SP, Badurov RB. Variants of chose in use of autologous pericardium in cardiac surgery. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy. 2012;(1):274– 279. (In Russ.).

9. Lawrie GM. Surgical treatment of mitral regurgitation. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2020;35(5):491–499. PMID: 32740446. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000772

10. Calafiore AM, Totaro A, De Amicis V, et al. Surgical mitral plasticity for chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Card Surg. 2020;35(4):772–778. PMID: 32126160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14487

11. Zheleznev SI, Bogachev-Prokofiev AV, Afanasyev AV, Nazarov VM, Demin II, Karaskov AM. Mid-term results of mitral valve reconstruction by using D-ring and C-flex systems in patients with degenerative mitral valve disease. Circulation Pathology and Cardiac Surgery. 2015;19(3):36–49. (In Russ.).

12. Tabata M, Kasegawa H, Fukui T, Shimizu A, Sato Y, Takanashi S. Long-term outcomes of artificial chordal replacement with tourniquet technique in mitral valve repair: a single-center experience of 700 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(5):2033–2038.e1. PMID: 24768103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.03.045

13. Kashiyama N, Masai T, Yoshitatsu M, et al. A simple way to treat mitral valve prolapse: chordal replacement using a new mitral leaflet retractor. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18(6):701–705. PMID: 24608729. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu040

14. Kadiroğulları E, Çiçek ÖF, Mola S, et al. Comparison of anterior mitral leaflet repair techniques with and without the use of chordal replacement in patients with degenerative mitral valve insufficiency. Heart Surg Forum. 2019;22(3):E234–E240. PMID: 31237550. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2317

15. Hata H, Fujita T, Shimahara Y, Sato S, Ishibashi-Ueda H, Kobayashi J. A 25-year study of chordal replacement with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in mitral valve repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20(4):463–468. PMID: 25547921. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu441