• Thierry Bové, Yves Van Belleghem, Guy Vandenplas, Frank Caes, Katrien François, Julie De Backer, Michel De Pauw, and Guido Van Nooten.
• Heart Centre, University Hospital of Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 5K12, Ghent 9000, Belgium. Thierry.bove@ugent.be
• Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Jun 1; 35 (6): 995-1003; discussion 1003.

ObjectiveBased on the adverse relationship between left ventricular (LV) remodeling and clinical outcome in ischemic cardiomyopathy, surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) is proposed as a valuable adjunct procedure. This study reports on the short-term clinical and hemodynamical performance of SVR.MethodsUsing end-systolic LV volume as indication for SVR, 78 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy are divided in two groups: group 1 comprised 55 patients treated by coronary revascularization and mitral annuloplasty, group 2 comprised 23 patients undergoing additional SVR. Hemodynamic investigation included echocardiographic assessment of systolic and diastolic function. Clinical follow-up focused on survival and functional status with exercise performance.ResultsBoth surgical approaches resulted in improvement of NYHA class (2.9-1.6 in group 1; 3.3-1.5 in group 2, p<0.001), achieving similar exercise performance (peak VO2 13.7 vs 15.4 ml/kgmin in groups 1 and 2, p=0.25) and plasma BNP values (group 1: 1350 pg/ml and group 2: 767 pg/ml, p=0.23). SVR provided additional benefit as patients basically had a worse NYHA class (2.9 in group 1 vs 3.3 in group 2, p=0.03). Within mean follow-up of 20 months, survival rate was 84% in group 1 and 74% in group 2 (p=0.11), including operative mortality of 7% and 13% (p=0.42). Through effective volume reduction (LVEDVI 41%; LVESVI 49%) systolic function improved immediately after SVR (LVEF 27-39% in group 2, p<0.05). Worsening of diastolic function was specifically observed after SVR within the first year (E/A-ratio 1.38-1.74 cm/s, p=0.02). Recurrent mitral regurgitation (p=0.004) and secondary remodeling (p=0.01) were major determinants of decreasing LV compliance. Clinical outcome in terms of cardiac events and survival was compromised by restrictive diastolic function (p=0.02) and increased LV volumes (p=0.04).ConclusionSVR in addition to coronary revascularization and restrictive mitral annuloplasty results in significant clinical improvement in selected patients with advanced ischemic heart disease and severely dilated ventricles. SVR entails immediate improvement of systolic function, which remains sustained during short-term follow-up. Serial assessment of diastolic function is mandatory as LV compliance seems more sensitive to early changes induced by recurrence of mitral regurgitation and secondary ventricular dilation. Moreover, worsening of diastolic dysfunction should be timely recognized because of its adverse clinical impact.

29 keywords...

hide…