Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 52:319-326, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.02.084
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carabello, B. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carabello, B. A.

The Current Therapy for Mitral Regurgitation

Blase A. Carabello, MD*

Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.


Figure 1
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Protein Synthesis

Myosin heavy chain (MHC) synthesis rate (Ks) and degradation rate (Kd) are shown for dogs with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) at 2 weeks (2W), 4 weeks (4W), and 3 months (3M) after initiation of the lesion expressed as a percent of the total pool (A) and as mg/day (B). Because left ventricular mass increased by 30% and no increase in Ks could be detected, a decrease in Kd is inferred. Reprinted with permission from Matsuo et al. (8).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Survival in MR

Survival after mitral valve repair (MVP) is compared with that after mitral valve replacement (MVR) for propensity-matched groups. Patients undergoing MVP had better survival. MR = mitral regurgitation. Reprinted with permission from Jokinen et al. (30).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Results of Repair Versus Replacement

Ejection fraction before and after mitral valve surgery with preservation of the mitral valve apparatus (solid circles) is compared with ejection fraction before and after mitral valve surgery with removal or the apparatus (open squares). Reprinted with permission from Rozich et al. (33).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Outcome and Symptoms

Survival of patients after surgery for MR with normal ejection fraction (EF) (left) and with reduced EF (right) are shown. Advanced New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class had a large impact on survival in both groups. MR = mitral regurgitation; NS = nonsignificant. Reprinted with permission from Tribouilloy et al. (36).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 5 Functional MR and Survival in CHF

Survival for patients with heart failure is shown for varying severities of MR. Patients with moderate to severe MR had a significantly worse outcome. CHF = congestive heart failure; MR = mitral regurgitation. Reprinted with permission from Trichon et al. (42).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 6 Results of Mitral Surgery in CHF

Unadjusted (A) and propensity-adjusted (B) survival of patients with secondary MR are shown and separated into groups of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery alone or CABG surgery plus mitral annuloplasty. No difference in survival was detected. Reprinted with permission from Mihaljevic et al. (50). MV = mitral valve; other abbreviations as in Figure 5.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement