ObjectivesThe optimal technique for repairing posterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse remains undetermined. We aimed to compare leaflet resection and neochordae implantation in patients undergoing mitral valve repair for posterior leaflet prolapse, focusing on transmitral pressure gradient and recurrence of mitral regurgitation. MethodsWe enrolled patients undergoing mitral valve repair using either leaflet resection or neochordae implantation for single-segment prolapse of posterior mitral valve leaflet between 2000 and 2021 at our institution. Longitudinal outcomes were evaluated after adjustments with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. Repeat echocardiographic measurements (n = 3473, 5.4/patient) of transmitral pressure gradient and significant (moderate or severe) mitral regurgitation recurrence were estimated using nonlinear mixed-effect models. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the size and type of prosthesis. ResultsAmong 639 patients, leaflet resection was used in 479 (75.0%) and neochordae implantation was used in 160 (25.0%). In the inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting adjusted cohort, the risk of death (P = .623) and mitral valve reoperation (P = .340) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups during a median follow-up of 97.3 months. Echocardiographic data showed comparable mean (at 5 years, 3.8 vs 4.0 mm Hg; P = .442) and peak (9.6 vs 10.4 mm Hg; P = .131) pressure gradients between groups, which persisted in most subgroup analyses. However, neochordae implantation was associated with a higher probability of significant mitral regurgitation recurrence compared with leaflet resection (at 5 years, 16.1% vs 7.0%; P < .001). ConclusionsLeaflet resection yielded similar clinical outcomes and transmitral pressure gradients compared with neochordae implantation after mitral valve repair, with a lower mitral regurgitation recurrence rate. These findings underscore the need to reassess the efficacy of neochordae implantation relative to leaflet resection.
Read full abstract