Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Cancer patients with heart failure (HF) and severe mitral regurgitation (MR) are often considered to be at risk for surgical mitral valve repair/replacement. Severe MR inducing symptomatic HF may prevent delivery of potentially cardiotoxic chemotherapy and complicate fluid management with other cancer treatments.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) in oncology patients with HF and significant MR.

Methods: Our study comprised 145 patients who underwent PMVR, MitraClip, at Hadassah Medical Center between August 2015 and September 2019, including 28 patients who had active or history of cancer. Data from 28 cancer patients were compared to 117 no-cancer patients from the cohort.

Results: There was no significant difference in the mean age of cancer patients and no-cancer patients (76 vs. 80 years, P = 0.16); 67% of the patients had secondary (functional) MR. Among cancer patients, 21 had solid tumor and 7 had hematologic malignancies. Nine patients (32%) had active malignancy at the time of PMVR. The mean short-term risk score of the patients was similar in the two groups, as were both 30-day and 1-year mortality rates (7% vs. 4%, P = 0.52) and (29% vs. 16%, P = 0.13), respectively.

Conclusion: PMVR in cancer patients is associated with similar 30-day and 1-year survival rate compared with patients without cancer. PMVR should be considered for cancer patients presenting with HF and severe MR and despite their malignancy. This approach may allow cancer patients to safely receive planned oncological treatment

Background: During the last decade new surgical techniques for mitral valve repair were developed. We have been using those techniques in order to widen the spectrum of patients eligible for MV[1] repair.

Objectives: To assess the operative and mid-term results a wide variety of surgical techniques.

Methods: From January 2004 through December 2006, 213 patients underwent MV repair in our institution. Valve pathology was degenerative in 123 patients (58%), ischemic in 37 (17%), showed annular dilatation in 25 (12%), endocarditis in 16 (8%), was rheumatic in 13 (6%), and due to other causes in 14 (7%). Preoperative New York Heart Association score was 2.35 ± 0.85 and ejection fraction 53 ± 12%. Isolated MV repair was performed in 90 patients (42%) and 158 concomitant procedures were done in 123 patients (58%). A wide variety of surgical techniques was used in order to increase the number of repairs compared to valve replacement.

Results: There were 7 in-hospital deaths (3.3%). NYHA[2] class improved from 2.19 ± 0.85 to 1.4 ± 0.6, and freedom from reoperation was 100%. Echocardiography follow-up of patients with degenerative MV revealed that 93% of the patients (115/123) were free of mitral regurgitation greater than 2+ grade. In patients operated by a minimal invasive approach there were no conversions to sternotomy, no late deaths, none required reoperation, and 96% were free of MR[3] greater than 2+ grade. The use of multiple surgical techniques enabled the repair of more than 80% of pure MR cases.

Conclusions: MV repair provides good perioperative and mid-term results, and supports the preference for MV repair over replacement, when feasible. Multiple valve repair techniques tailored to different pathologies increases the feasibility of mitral repair.

Background: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with reduced survival after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Objectives: To compare long-term survival among patients undergoing coronary surgery for reduced left ventricular function and severe ischemic MR[1] in whom the valve was either repaired, replaced, or no intervention was performed.

Methods: Eighty patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and severe MR underwent coronary bypass surgery. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range 42–82), and 63 (79%) were male. Sixty-three (79%) were in preoperative NYHA functional class III-IV (mean NYHA 3.3), and 26 (32%) were operated on an urgent/emergent basis. Coronary artery bypass surgery was performed in all patients. The mitral valve was repaired in 38 and replaced in 14, and in 28 there was no intervention. The clinical profile was similar in the three groups, although patients undergoing repair were slightly younger.

Results: Operative mortality was 15% (8%, 14%, and 25% for the repair, replacement and no intervention respectively; not significant). Long-term follow up was 100% complete, for a mean of 38 months (range 2–92). Twenty-nine patients (57%) were in NYHA I-II (mean NYHA 2.3). Among the surgery survivors, late survival was improved in the repair group compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). Predictors for late mortality were non-repair of the mitral valve, residual MR, and stroke (P = 0.005).

Conclusions: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe MR undergoing coronary bypass surgery should have a mitral procedure at the time of surgery. Mitral valve repair offers a survival advantage as compared to replacement or no intervention on the valve. Patients with residual MR had the worst results.