|
|
||||||||
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;28:778
© 2005 Elsevier Science NL
Letter to the Editor |
Yorkhill NHS Trust, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Dalnair Street, Glasgow GS 8SJ, UK
Received 12 July 2005; accepted 5 August 2005.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 141 201 0269; fax: +44 141 201 9204. (Email: drrajashahzad{at}hotmail.com).
Key Words: Ischemic mitral regurgitation Coronary artery bypass grafting Mitral annuloplasty Mitral valve repair
Hats off to Campwala et al. [1] for demystifying the management of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). Despite all its limitations their study can be deemed as a landmark contribution to the existing literature on management of IMR. Although they have discussed factors predicting regression of IMR after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the context of 3-4 + IMR yet the findings of their study can be extrapolated to define the optimal management strategy for 2 + IMR which is the most controversial grade of IMR viz a viz intervention on the mitral valve at the time of CABG.
Although most surgeons would agree that severe IMR (3-4+) should be corrected at the time of CABG and that trace to mild IMR (1+) can probably be left alone, the optimal management of moderate IMR (2+) remains controversial [2]. The pathophysiology of IMR is complex, and its presence may be related to several underlying processes that are often difficult to separate in a given patient [3]. Because of its complex pathophysiology and heterogeneous clinical presentation, the proper treatment of IMR is often debated, and the relative utility of revascularizationwith and without concomitant mitral valve surgeryin the setting of moderate IMR is uncertain. Those favoring a conservative approach suggest that revascularizing ischemic areas will improve regional wall motion and correct the MR [4]. On the other hand, proponents of more liberal use of mitral annuloplasty in patients with moderate IMR at the time of CABG argue that CABG alone will not correct moderate IMR in many patients, especially those with scarring from myocardial infarction and those with annular and ventricular dilatation [2].
The study by Campwala et al. [1] has once and for all solved this controversy by providing solid predictors of regression of IMR after CABG alone. As pointed out by Campwala et al. [1] regression of IMR is related to left ventricular (LV) size reduction and improvement in LV function. Hence, a corollary of this conclusion will be that in the presence of low ejection fraction and dilated LV, moderate IMR has to be corrected. On the other hand, in the presence of viable hibernating myocardium, adequate revascularization, lack of excessive atherosclerotic burden and preoperative therapy with beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors perhaps a more conservative approach with revascularization alone may be justified.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |