Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation

Michael A. Acker, Michael K. Parides, Louis P. Perrault, Alan J. Moskowitz, Annetine C. Gelijns, Pierre Voisine, Peter K. Smith, Judy W. Hung, Eugene H. Blackstone, John D. Puskas, Michael Argenziano, James S. Gammie, Michael Mack, Deborah D. Ascheim, Emilia Bagiella, Ellen G. Moquete, T. Bruce Ferguson, Keith A. Horvath, Nancy L. Geller, Marissa A. MillerY. Joseph Woo, David A. D'Alessandro, Gorav Ailawadi, Francois Dagenais, Timothy J. Gardner, Patrick T. O'Gara, Robert E. Michler, Irving L. Kron

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

709 Scopus citations


BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P = 0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P = 0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)23-32
Number of pages10
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this