Kevin D. Accola, MD
Central Message
Although we are in the “square wheel” phase of development in new percutaneous advancements, this will continue to evolve and become a variable in our treatment strategies.
See Article page 76.
Badhwar and co-authors
1
are to be congratulated because they have initiated a timely and necessary suggestion for anatomically defining functional mitral valve regurgitation (FMR) or secondary mitral valve regurgitation as defined in the 2017 American College of Cardiology guidelines by Nishimura and colleagues,2
published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology. Certainly, ischemic FMR is different from cardiomyopathic FMR and must be approached with a mind-set and paradigm relative to an anatomic perspective. We are treating “ventricular” or “atrial” pathology with an attempted valvular fix. Throw into this fray of treatment strategies the conceptual dilemma of “reactive” FMR, those patients with moderate mitral regurgitation while at rest (or under general anesthesia) but progression of severe mitral regurgitation when the ventricle is under any stress with activity.Both the recently published articles by Acker and colleagues
3
and Goldstein and colleagues4
clearly demonstrate the poor results at 1-year and 2-year intervals when annular remodeling was compared with mitral valve replacement, with approximately one third of valve annulus remodeling at 1 year and two thirds at 2 years having significant recurrence of mitral regurgitation. I believe the depth of leaflet coaptation relative to the annular plane and ventricular pathoanatomy, irrespective of etiology as suggested by Badhwar and colleagues,1
should be the deciding factor whether the valve annulus is remodeled or replaced, or another intervention such as percutaneous technology is used. When small annuloplasty rings are placed, high gradients do occur, particularly with activity. Although we are in the “square wheel” phase of development in new percutaneous advancements, this will certainly continue to evolve and become a variable in our treatment strategies. With the advent of valve-in-valve technologies, this will also have an impact on the decision of surgical strategies in patients in whom the mitral valve is replaced.Annuloplasty remodeling will yet have a role in these patients if the leaflets are mobile, compliant, and coapting at the annular plane echographically. This description by Alan Carpentier is type I valvular pathology, which we all adopted and conversed with from the “beginning of time” relative to mitral valve treatment strategies. Certainly, there are variations of this pathologic process that may be best served with a mitral valve replacement as opposed to an attempted correction with annular remodeling. Functional or secondary mitral regurgitation has become better clarified, and now is the time for a common, more detailed nomenclature. Surgically, we can all make a valve “not leak.” But as noted, current clinical data demonstrate early recurrent mitral regurgitation with little to no benefit to the patient as the ventricular process progresses. Perhaps this addition to the literature provides understanding and clarification of FMR anatomic variations, and there will be clinical trials conducted to define treatment strategies best used for each of these. The ultimate goal will be to develop a common nomenclature and subsequent treatment strategies for optional long-term results and patient benefit.
References
- A pathoanatomic approach to secondary functional mitral regurgitation: evaluating the evidence.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019; 158: 76-81
- 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70: 252-289
- Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 23-32
- Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.N Engl J Med. 2016; 374: 344-353
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 22, 2019
Accepted:
March 8,
2019
Received in revised form:
March 7,
2019
Received:
February 25,
2019
Footnotes
Disclosures: K.D.A. periodically consults with Edwards Lifesciences.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- A pathoanatomic approach to secondary functional mitral regurgitation: Evaluating the evidenceThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryVol. 158Issue 1
- PreviewLeaflet tethering and annular dilatation secondary to left ventricular (LV) dilatation and papillary muscle displacement pose ongoing challenges to the surgical or transcatheter management of functional secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). However, recent transcatheter trial results have put current treatment strategies into a new prospective.
- Full-Text
- Preview
30696-8&id=fx1.jpg){kind=link}