Mitral regurgitation: anatomy is destiny

Mitral regurgitation: anatomy is destiny Abstract Mitral regurgitation (MR) occurs when any of the valve and ventricular mitral apparatus components are disturbed. As MR progresses, left ventricular remodelling occurs, ultimately causing heart failure when the enlarging left ventricle (LV) loses its conical shape and becomes globular. Heart failure and lethal ventricular arrhythmias may develop if the left ventricular end-systolic volume index exceeds 55 ml/m2. These adverse changes persist despite satisfactory correction of the annular component of MR. Our goal was to describe this process and summarize evolving interventions that reduce the volume of the left ventricle and rebuild its elliptical shape. This ‘valve/ventricle’ approach addresses the spherical ventricular culprit and offsets the limits of treating MR by correcting only its annular component. Mitral insufficiency, Mitral apparatus, Valve ventricular approach, Surgical ventricular restoration, Ventricular architecture INTRODUCTION Mitral regurgitation (MR) is an abnormal reversal of blood flow from the left ventricle (LV) to the left atrium. It is caused by disruption in any part of the mitral valve (MV) apparatus, which includes 6 components: left atrial wall, annulus, leaflets, chordae tendineae, papillary muscles and the LV wall. This report focuses on the ‘valve/ventricle’ interface. The most common causes of MR are primary, due to MV prolapse, rheumatic heart disease, infective endocarditis and annular calcification or secondary, due to dilated cardiomyopathy from ischaemic or non-ischaemic causes. There are no anatomical lesions of the valves, annulus, chordae tendineae or papillary muscles among the secondary causes of MR, underscoring why valve/ventricle interaction is important. Until now, conventional surgery has addressed mitral replacement or repair linked to Carpentier’s innovative valvular techniques [1, 2]. Unfortunately, successfully restoring MV competence does not prevent a compromised long-term prognosis if the preoperative left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) is >55 ml/m2 [3]. This review emphasizes the importance of understanding and evaluating LV volume and shape in formulating a surgical approach. Adverse late outcomes in a variety of diseases are associated with ventricular dilation, a geometric alteration that can be avoided or treated surgically. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY Heart failure disrupts the ability of the ventricle to generate systolic ejection and to augment filling through diastolic suction. It is progressive and may stem from an index event such as damaged myocardium following infarction or ventricular volume overloading from primary valvular dysfunction. Left ventricular remodelling is the early ventricular response after the enlarged and more spherical LV chamber adapts by activating neurohormonal and cytokine systems. Left ventricular remodelling is progressively maladaptive when the LV becomes more spherical. The increased afterload at end-diastole and early systolic wall stress accentuate specific signal transduction pathways to worsen remodelling [4, 5]. Myocardial fibre orientation is distorted by the abnormal spherical ventricular shape. Systolic torsion falls and there is an independent linear relationship between the left ventricular sphericity and peak systolic twist [6]. Progressive remodelling pulls the papillary muscles apart, altering the chordae tendineae’s natural vertical angulation, thereby tethering the leaflets, which accentuates functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). A poor clinical prognosis follows progressive LV dilation, independent of its cause. LV size rather than ejection fraction (EF) more accurately predicts outcomes following myocardial infarction (Fig. 1) [7]. The Survival and Ventricular Enlargement Trial (SAVE) altered neurohumoral factors pharmacologically after myocardial infarction. More late heart failure and fatal ventricular arrhythmias developed if LV enlargement increased 3-fold [9]. Mortality was 100% when the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) was >7.6 cm versus a 45% death rate if it was <7.6 cm in dilated idiopathic cardiomyopathy [10]. Carabello [3], Detaint et al. [11] and Bonow et al. [12] each studied patients with valve disease postoperatively and found higher late death rates from heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias if the preoperative LVESVI was >55–60 ml/m2. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Left ventricular end-systolic volume index compared to the ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction. An ejection fraction of 35% is highlighted. Values are in ml versus ml/m2, so 150 ml equates with ∼75 ml/m2. Note more non-survivors at higher left ventricular volume. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [8]. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Left ventricular end-systolic volume index compared to the ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction. An ejection fraction of 35% is highlighted. Values are in ml versus ml/m2, so 150 ml equates with ∼75 ml/m2. Note more non-survivors at higher left ventricular volume. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [8]. Bolognese and Cerisano [13] examined the impact of LV remodelling after successful percutaneous coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Despite a patent infarct-related artery, the 80-month prognosis worsened when 15% of the patients developed >20% LV enlargement [13]. LV sphericity is the ratio of the long LV axis to the short LV axis. A sphere ratio is 1.0. Douglas et al. [14] found that 10 of 11 (91%) patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy were dead at 48 months if the sphericity was >0.76, whereas the mortality rate at 72 months was 40% if the sphericity was <0.76 [14]. Myocardial fibre orientation and ventricular shape were used to mathematically predict the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [15]. A normal EF is 60–70% despite isolated heart muscle preparations exhibiting <20% shortening. The helical fibre orientation that defines the normal LV shape produces systolic twisting (torsion) (Fig. 2). Its natural 60° fibre angulation generates an EF of 60%. Alternately, a spherical LV shape orients the fibres more horizontally, resulting in an EF of only 30%. Ventricular twisting in the healthy heart is due to a clockwise rotation of the inner helical arm and counterclockwise rotation of the outer helical arm. Sphericity deforms this natural shape and worsens twisting by weakening the contractile properties because fibre orientation in dilated hearts becomes transverse rather than maintaining the natural helical orientation. Figure 2: View largeDownload slide Myocardial ventricular fibre orientation in normal conical ventricular architecture, where, in the upper tracing, oblique helical fibres have a 60°-angulation to form the apical vortex from the outer (bright arrow) and inner (duller arrow) helical coils. Circumferential fibres with a transverse orientation surround the helix. In the lower tracing, a dilated spherical heart, the helical fibres have a more transverse orientation due to stretch. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [16]. Figure 2: View largeDownload slide Myocardial ventricular fibre orientation in normal conical ventricular architecture, where, in the upper tracing, oblique helical fibres have a 60°-angulation to form the apical vortex from the outer (bright arrow) and inner (duller arrow) helical coils. Circumferential fibres with a transverse orientation surround the helix. In the lower tracing, a dilated spherical heart, the helical fibres have a more transverse orientation due to stretch. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [16]. A unified architectural alteration occurs during ventricular dilation [17] as the normal helical fibre orientation [18] is distorted by flattening the ventricular helix. The resultant fibre angulation change impairs ventricular twisting [16, 19, 20] (Fig. 2). Deformation of the helical and transverse fibres also changes to limit LV mid-wall circumferential strain. The LV sphericity index is the strongest independent predictor of adverse peak apical LV systolic twist in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy [18]. FUNCTIONAL MITRAL REGURGITATION FMR develops from restricted leaflet systolic motion back toward the annular plane. The leaflets are tethered to the displaced papillary muscles, which results in their downward systolic tenting, a movement that causes poor systolic coaptation and produces MR. Tethering and impaired coaptation worsen as the spherical LV and mitral annulus widen. FMR also follows abnormal ventricular conduction (left bundle branch block). Heterogeneous ventricular activation follows prolonged QRS duration, because delayed activation produces myocardial systolic dys-synchrony. The septum billows, creating FMR by tenting the adjacently connected papillary muscles. Cardiac resynchronization produces more homogeneous electrical activation to sometimes reverse remodelling [21] and return torsion [22]. Evaluation of FMR is aided by exercise testing. Echocardiography semiquantitates the extent of the FMR. Without this preferred ambulatory evaluation, inotropes can be delivered intraoperatively to increase blood pressure and afterload. Current surgical treatment of FMR aims to reduce annular size and the septal-lateral dimension using partial or full rings. Partial banding proponents believe minimal dilation exists between the trigones despite ventricular dilation. This observation differs from de Oliviera’s observation that annular dilation was proportional in ischaemic and non-ischaemic dilated hearts [23]. Rigid rather than flexible bands or rings are preferred in ischaemic cardiomyopathy [24] because they pull the lateral wall medially and fix it in a systolic position. Downsizing the annulus still yields a 5-year mortality rate of 50% because of failure to correct the ventricular component of the mitral apparatus [25]. To achieve leaflet coaptation in FMR, the secondary chords of the anterior mitral leaflet have been cut to relieve tenting caused by posterior papillary muscle displacement, implying no adverse effects on the LV [26, 27]. This approach disrupts the natural papillary muscle leaflet connection that maintains an elliptical ventricular shape and contradicts Lillehei’s 1964 emphasis on preserving the subvalvular apparatus [28]. Experimental studies confirm that this surgical technique consistently increases LV sphericity [29, 30]. In 1 study, preoperative LV dimensions were recorded to determine if restrictive mitral annuloplasty with coronary revascularization reverses remodelling in 100 consecutive patients with cardiomyopathy. The 5-year mortality rate was 49% when left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) was >51 mm in 28 of these patients, whose LVEDD was >65 mm; these values reflect the cut-off levels for expecting reverse remodelling [31, 32]. Similarly, DeBonis reviewed annuloplasty in dilated hearts and found recurrent FMR and symptom worsening in half of the patients when the LV volume and sphericity index increased [26, 33]. The importance of LV volume and prognosis is shown in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trial that randomized 301 patients with moderate ischaemic MR to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or MV repair plus CABG [34]. LVESVI was the primary 1-year end point, and more cases of fatal congestive heart failure and lethal ventricular arrhythmias developed if it was >55–60 ml/m2 [3, 11, 12]. Normal LVESVI is 25 ml/m2 [35]. LVESVI was reduced by approximately 16% in both study groups, reaching a final index of 46 ml/m2. LV remodelling did not reverse this abnormal stretch since postoperative LVESVI still remained almost twice the normal value [34]. This marginal reduction of LVESVI attained statistical significance, but the retained large LV volumes resulted in poor long-term outcomes. The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network investigators also randomized 251 patients to repair with annuloplasty versus MV replacement with chordal preservation [36]. The LVESVI change was marginal at 6.6 and 6.8 ml/m2. Postoperative volumes were still large: LVESVI 55 ± 25 ml/m2 (repair) and 61 ± 32 ml/m2 (replacement). The 12-month adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, functional status and quality of life were similar, but the repair group sustained a higher incidence (33% vs 2%) of recurrent moderate or severe MR [36]. At 2 years, 69% of patients having repair developed moderate to severe MR or died. The mechanism for recurrent MR is increased MV leaflet tethering [37], emphasizing why the surgeon must focus on LV size. A large multicentre report from Italy comparing MV replacement to repair [38] found similar 8-year survival rates (82% ± 3% for repair and 80% ± 5% for replacement), but the LVEF did not improve in either group. MV repair was a strong predictor of reoperation. The dilated LV continued to damage postoperative function. An alternate approach for FMR involves supplementing annuloplasty by suturing the centre of the anterior leaflet to the posterior leaflet, thereby creating a double mitral orifice (the Alfieri repair) [39]. Reverse LV remodelling occurred in 52% of 111 patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, but remodelling remained unchanged in 48% of patients [33]. Reverse LV remodelling improved repair durability and clinical outcome, yet persistent and progressive remodelling developed in more dilated hearts. The goal of improved leaflet coaptation was addressed by pericardial patching of the anterior MV leaflet in patients with FMR with tented leaflets from LV dilation [40]. Despite achieving a competent annulus, this approach does not address the dilated ventricle or document long-term reversed remodelling. Conventional use of the term ‘remodelling’ may create confusion because it describes increased LVEDD, spherical LV shape and reduced EF; reversed remodelling describes the return of the LVEDD, shape and EF toward baseline. Bockeria and Averina found that preoperative remodelling correlated with ventricular fibrosis, measured by MRA, but that postoperative fibrosis was unchanged or continued despite reversed remodelling [41]. LVESVI fell from 59 ml/m2 to 45 ml/m2, but fibrosis was initiated and progressed with enlarged ventricular volumes. Consequently, any mention of reverse remodelling should also include the extent of LVESVI reduction. This will avoid initiating the confusion of relating remodelling to improvement. ORGANIC MITRAL REGURGITATION Primary leaflet or chordal disease results in organic MR, leading to the development of several repair methods [1]. Excision of redundant leaflet tissue now includes use of neochords to promote coaptation by resuspending the leaflets [42]. Minimally invasive and robotic approaches are being used more frequently [43, 44]. The Alfieri method of fixing anterior and posterior mitral leaflet coaptation with edge-to-edge central mattress sutures is also done with the transcatheter MitraClip [45]. The 6-month incidence of reverse remodelling depends upon the extent of LVESVI reduction. It was less at 25% in more dilated hearts (63–47 ml/m2) but fell more (41%) with smaller preoperative LV volumes (49–28 ml/m2) [42, 43]. The 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association valve guidelines point to earlier intervention for chronic MR because of the poor outcomes if LVEF <60%, LVESD >45 mm or LVESVI >60 ml/m2 [3]. Currently, asymptomatic patients with preserved LV function (LVEF >60%) are considered for mitral repair (Class IIa) if the LVESD is <40 mm, provided there is a 95% chance that the repair can be done with a mortality rate <1% [46]. Early intervention for MR is the new standard to prevent LV dilation. The Mayo Clinic reported outcomes in >1000 patients undergoing repair or replacement and noted that return to normal LVEF was better if the preoperative LVEF was >65% and the LVESD was <36 mm [47]. THE VENTRICULAR CULPRIT The aforementioned findings demonstrate that an atrial level repair of MR has consistently failed to prevent progressive LV dysfunction because the ventricle and papillary muscles of the mitral apparatus were not addressed. Annular correction introduces the important first step in modifying components of the mitral apparatus, which form the LV trilogy: the LV base, its mid wall and apex (Fig. 3). The dilemma is how the annulus, leaflets, chordae, papillary muscles and the underlying ventricular wall structures interact to produce leaflet coaptation, because a ‘tug of war’ seems to exist between them (Fig. 4). Figure 3: View largeDownload slide The ‘ventricular trilogy’ comprising the cardiac base containing the mitral annulus, the left ventricular mid-wall whose equatorial plane widens more than lengthens in the spherical configuration and the cardiac apex that changes from a normal conical to a spherical contour. Figure 3: View largeDownload slide The ‘ventricular trilogy’ comprising the cardiac base containing the mitral annulus, the left ventricular mid-wall whose equatorial plane widens more than lengthens in the spherical configuration and the cardiac apex that changes from a normal conical to a spherical contour. Figure 4: View largeDownload slide Tug of war between ventricular components to change the mitral valve leaflet coaptation zone. These elements include the widened base, the dilated chamber to tether leaflets and widened distance between papillary muscles that further tethers chordae/leaflet annulus attachment. Ao: aorta; LA: leaflet annulus; LV: left ventricle; PM: papillary muscles. Figure 4: View largeDownload slide Tug of war between ventricular components to change the mitral valve leaflet coaptation zone. These elements include the widened base, the dilated chamber to tether leaflets and widened distance between papillary muscles that further tethers chordae/leaflet annulus attachment. Ao: aorta; LA: leaflet annulus; LV: left ventricle; PM: papillary muscles. Subvalvular techniques have been developed to treat MR in the remodelled LV. Hvass addressed massively dilated LV dimensions (mean LVESVI 70 mm) in Class III and IV heart failure by implanting a slightly downsized ring with an intraventricular papillary muscle sling to bring them together. They are restored to a more normal position with a 4-mm Gore-Tex tube sling. The reduced mitral leaflet tenting resulted in improved LV dimension, LVEF and LV sphericity ratio at the 1-year follow-up examination [48]. Langer supplemented annuloplasty in patients with FMR by reducing leaflet tethering (when the latter was >10 mm) by passing a suture from the head of the papillary muscle into the mitral annular fibrosa. He exteriorized it in the area between the non-coronary and left coronary aortic cusps [49]. Repositioning the displaced posterior papillary muscle toward the fibrosa was accomplished by tying the suture under echocardiographic guidance in the beating heart. Using papillary muscles for correcting severe MR supplements annuloplasty is done by suturing their bodies to the mitral annulus [50, 51]. Initial experimental followed by clinical studies demonstrate that this technique reverses LV remodelling, decreases the tenting area and improves the leaflet coaptation depth. At 5 years, only 3% of patients developed moderate recurrent MR [52]. A comparison of standard MV replacement with MV replacement supplemented with papillary muscle positioning was done in 50 randomized patients with FMR and LV dysfunction. The papillary muscle heads were sutured to the corresponding annulus. The 3-year follow-up data showed that only the papillary muscle positioning group sustained increased LVEF (34–45%), lower LVESVI and reduced sphericity ratio (0.64–0.49) [53]. Buffalo operated on 116 patients with secondary MR from advanced heart failure with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy [54], including 11 patients on intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. All received a bioprosthesis, and he addressed the ventricular component of MR by preserving all chords and by pulling the papillary muscle heads into the annulus for LV reshaping. The hospital mortality rate was 16%. LVEF, sphericity, functional class and stroke volume improved progressively. Patients with and without non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy received the same procedure, so that results in patients with ischaemia may have been impacted by the residual scar. Calafiore et al. [55] described a ventricular approach for FMR in dilated ischaemic cardiomyopathy by creating a conical ventricular contour without addressing the mitral leaflets. He rebuilt the septum by anchoring an intraventricular patch to normal muscle or scar to restore the LV elliptical shape. In 77 patients, MR fell from grade 2.5–0.6, and the 2.5-year survival rate in patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I–II was 88% and 85%, respectively. Menicanti et al. [56] addressed all mitral components in patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and FMR. He used the standard surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) operation that included a ventriculotomy, patch placement to restore LV elliptical shape, imbrication of the papillary muscles and suture reduction of the posterior annulus. Operative mortality was 15%. The LVEF did not appreciably change but the LVESVI fell from 98 ± 32 to 63 ± 22 ml/m2; functional class improved and survival was 63% at the 30-month follow-up. The Coapsys device treats MR by reshaping the spherical dilated ventricle without ventriculotomy. In the beating heart, anterior and posterior epicardial pads are drawn together by a transventricular chord that decreases the mitral annulus and the septal-lateral dimension by decreasing its short axis to reshape the ventricle. The randomized multicentre RESTOR-MV (Randomized Evaluation of a Surgical Treatment for Off-Pump Repair of the Mitral Valve) study of 165 patients with FMR [57] compared Coapsys ventricular reshaping with CABG to conventional mitral repair with CABG. Patients with reshaping had an improved 2-year survival (87% vs 77%) rate and significantly fewer adverse major outcomes. MR fell from grade 2.54 at baseline to 0.52 at 1 year and to 0.35 at 2 years. The Coapsys device is not available, but their findings confirm the importance of changing LV shape and volume by addressing the ventriculomitral complex rather than only employing conventional mitral repair in patients with FMR. The importance of addressing the ventricular component of MR in ischaemic cardiomyopathy has evolved because of marginal long-term outcomes with annular reduction alone. The RESTORE (Reconstructive Endoventricular Surgery returning Torsion Original Radius Elliptical Shape) study focused on the vessels, valve and ventricle [58] in a 1198-patient, multi-institutional international registry. Inclusion criteria were previous transmural anterior myocardial infarction, significant ventricular dilation (LVESVI ≥60 ml/m2), and an asynergic (non-contractile) regional scar of ≥35% of the LV circumference. During SVR, the anteroseptal, apical and anterolateral LV scarred segments were excluded by an intracardiac patch or by direct closure. CABG and mitral procedures were performed concomitantly (Fig. 5). MV procedures were performed in 22% of patients. They had larger ventricles and more reduced EF. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in the MV repair/replacement group (9% vs 4%), but the 5-year survival rate was similar (69 ± 4% vs 71± 3%) to that of the group without mitral intervention. MV replacement was rare (30 patients, <1%). Findings from this registry confirm the importance of addressing the vessels, valve and ventricular components when treating FMR. Suma extended the ventricular approach to patients with MR with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy by showing that SVR improved prognosis over repair alone when the LVESVI was >150 ml/m2 [60]. Lethal late arrhythmias and fatal heart failure were reduced in sharp contrast to traditional reports of poor surgical outcomes with LVESVI >55 ml/m2 [3]. Figure 5: View largeDownload slide Upper left: normal left ventricular conical chamber. Upper right: dilated left ventricle with a spherical shape due to stretching of remote muscle following a myocardial infarction. Lower: Surgical ventricular restoration changes left ventricular size and shape to rebuild the natural conical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [59]. Figure 5: View largeDownload slide Upper left: normal left ventricular conical chamber. Upper right: dilated left ventricle with a spherical shape due to stretching of remote muscle following a myocardial infarction. Lower: Surgical ventricular restoration changes left ventricular size and shape to rebuild the natural conical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [59]. The SAVE (Septal Anterior Ventricular Exclusion) or ‘Pacopexy’ [in recognition of Francisco (Paco) Torrent-Guasp] is an operation that restores the LV elliptical shape with an oblique intracardiac patch from the LV apex to the high septum beneath the aortic valve (Fig. 6). This technique excludes normal septal muscle to rebuild form and expands the seminal contributions by Dor [62] and Jatene [63] that only focus on scar exclusion [64, 65]. The widened papillary muscles are also imbricated as suggested by the RESTORE team [66] and Matsui et al. [67]. Figure 6: View largeDownload slide Changes in left ventricular architecture after surgical ventricular restoration. Upper tracing shows preoperative spherical dilated left ventricle after infarction (hatched area is scar). Lower left image shows retained globular shape if only the scar is excluded and dilated remote muscle persists. Lower right image treats the ‘form’ by rebuilding ellipse to create a conical rather than a spherical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg [61]. Figure 6: View largeDownload slide Changes in left ventricular architecture after surgical ventricular restoration. Upper tracing shows preoperative spherical dilated left ventricle after infarction (hatched area is scar). Lower left image shows retained globular shape if only the scar is excluded and dilated remote muscle persists. Lower right image treats the ‘form’ by rebuilding ellipse to create a conical rather than a spherical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg [61]. The extent of LV volume reduction on long-term outcomes was shown by Isomura in 90 patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy who underwent SVR. The 8-year survival rate was 82% in 50 patients undergoing mitral repair, and SVR was most effective when a >33% volume reduction achieved an LVESVI <90 ml/m2 [68]. Rebuilding the shape of the LV was also a key goal: The 7-year survival rate was 72% with a conical shape versus 62% with a spherical shape. The role of substantially reducing LV size was further documented by Calafiore’s recent report of 113 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy with FMR undergoing SVR and either mitral repair (2/3) or replacement (1/3) [69]. Ventricular volume was reduced >40% and repair versus replacement was determined by mitral leaflet coaptation depth: Repair was used if it was <10 mm and replacement, if it was >10 mm [70, 71]. The 5-year survival rate was 81% if preoperative MR was not severe and only 11% were in NYHA III/IV postoperatively. Calafiore adhered to the initial inclusion and surgical performance criteria originally envisioned by the STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure) trial. Unfortunately, the STICH randomized trial was flawed because of its departure from its original design and from the SVR registry guidelines [72, 73]. However, the RESTORE and other similar registries became the benchmarks in establishing the guidelines for SVR by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons [74], which included LV volume, documentation of scar and experienced centres. The functional impact of restoring LV size and shape was highlighted by Cirillo who reported that rebuilding normal cardiac shape restored natural twisting or torsion in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy [75]. Patients with FMR were not included, but achievement of an elliptical form was critical because restored torsion persisted for 7.9 years without hospital deaths or late heart failure deaths. These findings echoed those of Isomura and emphasize that correction of shape is vital to address FMR’s ventricular culprit. Volume reduction is also critical because mortality after SVR is increased with a postoperative LVESVI >60 ml/m2 [76]. The significance of reshaping the LV and of reducing volume in patients with cardiomyopathy has prompted the development of innovative procedures without open-heart surgery. One device anchors cables between the LV free wall and the septum to reduce volume and reshape the ventricle. LVESVI was reduced 36% and 40% from baseline at 6- and 12-month follow-up examinations in 31 patients, respectively [77]. The LV Parachute device achieves LV reduction non-invasively. An umbrella-shaped nitinol frame covered with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene occlusive membrane is expanded following percutaneous passage across the aortic valve into the LV apex. Its anchors engage the myocardium to seal off the distal akinetic LV chamber. Currently, 65 US centres are running trials comparing the Parachute with optimal medical therapy in patients with a dyskinetic or aneurysmal LV apex and <35% LVEF [78]. CONCLUSIONS MR is due to a disturbance of any of the 6 components of the mitral apparatus. LV remodelling progresses as the LV contour becomes more spherical. The scarred or dysfunctional LV is a vital culprit in this process. Addressing MR surgically by reducing the LV volume and restoring the shape together with annular reduction can change the outlook for patients with dilated and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Conflict of interest: none declared. REFERENCES 1 Carpentier A. Cardiac valve surgery—the ‘French correction’. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1983; 86: 323– 37. Google Scholar PubMed  2 Carpentier A, Adams DH, Filsoufi F. Reconstructive Valve Surgery: From Valve Analysis to Valve Reconstruction . Philadelphia, PA, USA: Saunders; Elsevier, 2016. 3 Carabello BA. The changing unnatural history of valvular regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  1992; 53: 191– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4 Force T, Michael A, Kilter H, Haq S. Stretch-activated pathways and left ventricular remodeling. J Card Fail  2002; 8: S351– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5 Mann DL. Left ventricular size and shape: determinants of mechanical signal transduction pathways. Heart Fail Rev  2005; 10: 95– 100. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6 Kauer F, Geleijnse ML, van Dalen BM. Role of left ventricular twist mechanics in cardiomyopathies, dance of the helices. World J Cardiol  2015; 7: 476– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7 White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, Brandt PW, Whitlock RM, Wild CJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation  1987; 76: 44– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8 Buckberg GD, Coghlan HC, Torrent-Guasp F. The structure and function of the helical heart and its buttress wrapping. V. Anatomic and physiologic considerations in the healthy and failing heart. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2001; 13: 358– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9 St John Sutton M, Pfeffer MA, Plappert T, Rouleau JL, Moye LA, Dagenais GR et al.   Quantitative two-dimensional echocardiographic measurements are major predictors of adverse cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction. The protective effects of captopril. Circulation  1994; 89: 68– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10 St John SM, Lee D, Rouleau JL, Goldman S, Plappert T, Braunwald E et al.   Left ventricular remodeling and ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction. Circulation  2003; 107: 2577– 82. Google Scholar PubMed  11 Bonow RO, Rosing DR, Kent KM, Epstein SE. Timing of operation for chronic aortic regurgitation. Am J Cardiol  1982; 50: 325– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12 Detaint D, Maalouf J, Tribouilloy C, Mahoney DW, Schaff HV, Tajik AJ et al.   Congestive heart failure complicating aortic regurgitation with medical and surgical management: a prospective study of traditional and quantitative echocardiographic markers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2008; 136: 1549– 57. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13 Bolognese L, Cerisano G. Early predictors of left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J  1999; 138: S79– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14 Douglas PS, Morrow R, Ioli A, Reichek N. Left ventricular shape, afterload and survival in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol  1989; 13: 311– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15 Sallin EA. Fiber orientation and ejection fraction in the human left ventricle. Biophys J  1969; 9: 954– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16 Buckberg GD, Hoffman JI, Coghlan HC, Nanda NC. Ventricular structure-function relations in health and disease: part II. Clinical considerations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 47: 778– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17 Sabbah HN, Kono T, Stein PD, Mancini GB, Goldstein S. Left ventricular shape changes during the course of evolving heart failure. Am J Physiol  1992; 263: H266– 70. Google Scholar PubMed  18 van Dalen BM, Kauer F, Vletter WB, Soliman OI, van der Zwaan HB, Ten Cate FJ et al.   Influence of cardiac shape on left ventricular twist. J Appl Physiol (1985)  2010; 108: 146– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19 Buckberg G, Hoffman JI, Mahajan A, Saleh S, Coghlan C. Cardiac mechanics revisited: the relationship of cardiac architecture to ventricular function. Circulation  2008; 118: 2571– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20 Buckberg GD, Hoffman JI, Coghlan HC, Nanda NC. Ventricular structure-function relations in health and disease: part I. The normal heart. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 47: 587– 601. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21 Jackson T, Sohal M, Chen Z, Child N, Sammut E, Behar J et al.   A U-shaped type II contraction pattern in patients with strict left bundle branch block predicts super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm  2014; 11: 1790– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22 Rüssel IK, Götte MJW. New insights in LV torsion for the selection of cardiac resynchronisation therapy candidates. Neth Heart J  2011; 19: 386– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23 Hueb AC, Jatene FB, Moreira LF, Pomerantzeff PM, Kallas E, de Oliveira SA. Ventricular remodeling and mitral valve modifications in dilated cardiomyopathy: new insights from anatomic study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 1216– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24 Spoor MT, Geltz A, Bolling SF. Flexible versus nonflexible mitral valve rings for congestive heart failure: differential durability of repair. Circulation  2006; 114: I67– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25 Bolling SF, Pagani FD, Deeb GM, Bach DS. Intermediate-term outcome of mitral reconstruction in cardiomyopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1998; 115: 381– 6. discussion 387–8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26 Hung J, Papakostas L, Tahta SA, Hardy BG, Bollen BA, Duran CM et al.   Mechanism of recurrent ischemic mitral regurgitation after annuloplasty: continued LV remodeling as a moving target. Circulation  2004; 110: Ii85– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27 Fayad G, Marechaux S, Modine T, Azzaoui R, Larrue B, Ennezat PV et al.   Chordal cutting VIA aortotomy in ischemic mitral regurgitation: surgical and echocardiographic study. J Card Surg  2008; 23: 52– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28 Lillehei CW, Levy MJ, Bonnabeau RCJ. Mitral valve replacement with preservation of papillary muscles and chordae tendieae to canine global left ventricular systolic function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1964; 47: 532– 43. Google Scholar PubMed  29 Rodriguez F, Langer F, Harrington KB, Tibayan FA, Zasio MK, Cheng A et al.   Importance of mitral valve second-order chordae for left ventricular geometry, wall thickening mechanics, and global systolic function. Circulation  2004; 110: Ii115– 22. Google Scholar PubMed  30 Nielsen SL, Timek TA, Green GR, Dagum P, Daughters GT, Hasenkam JM et al.   Influence of anterior mitral leaflet second-order chordae tendineae on left ventricular systolic function. Circulation  2003; 108: 486– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31 Braun J, Bax JJ, Versteegh MI, Voigt PG, Holman ER, Klautz RJ et al.   Preoperative left ventricular dimensions predict reverse remodeling following restrictive mitral annuloplasty in ischemic mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2005; 27: 847– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32 Braun J, van de Veire NR, Klautz RJ, Versteegh MI, Holman ER, Westenberg JJ et al.   Restrictive mitral annuloplasty cures ischemic mitral regurgitation and heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg  2008; 85: 430– 6; discussion 436–7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33 De Bonis M, Lapenna E, Verzini A, La Canna G, Grimaldi A, Torracca L et al.   Recurrence of mitral regurgitation parallels the absence of left ventricular reverse remodeling after mitral repair in advanced dilated cardiomyopathy. Ann Thorac Surg  2008; 85: 932– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  34 Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, Voisine P, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ et al.   Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med  2014; 371: 2178– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  35 McManus DD, Shah SJ, Fabi MR, Rosen A, Whooley MA, Schiller NB. Prognostic value of left ventricular end-systolic volume index as a predictor of heart failure hospitalization in stable coronary artery disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr  2009; 22: 190– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  36 Acker MA, Parides MK, Perrault LP, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, Voisine P et al.   Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med  2014; 370: 23– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  37 Kron IL, Hung J, Overbey JR, Bouchard D, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ et al.   Predicting recurrent mitral regurgitation after mitral valve repair for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2015; 149: 752– 61.e1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  38 Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Vizzardi E, D'Aloia A, De Cicco G, Luca F et al.   Mitral valve repair or replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation? The Italian Study on the Treatment of Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation (ISTIMIR). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2013; 20: 114– 39; discussion 137–8. 39 Alfieri O, Maisano F, De Bonis M, Stefano PL, Torracca L, Oppizzi M et al.   The double-orifice technique in mitral valve repair: a simple solution for complex problems. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2001; 122: 674– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  40 Kincaid EH, Riley RD, Hines MH, Hammon JW, Kon ND. Anterior leaflet augmentation for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2004; 78: 564– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  41 Bockeria O, Kislitsina O, Svetlana A, Averina I. Effect myocardial fibrosis on the left ventricular remodeling, left and right ventricular function and prognosis in patients with acquired heart diesease using contrasting MRI and 2D speckle tracking. J Am Coll Cardiol  2016; 67: 2209. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  42 David TE, Bos J, Rakowski H. Mitral valve repair by replacement of chordae tendineae with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1991; 101: 495– 501. Google Scholar PubMed  43 Glauber M, Miceli A, Canarutto D, Lio A, Murzi M, Gilmanov D et al.   Early and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right minithoracotomy: a 10-year experience in 1604 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 10: 181. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  44 Suri RM, Taggarse A, Burkhart HM, Daly RC, Mauermann W, Nishimura RA et al.   Robotic mitral valve repair for simple and complex degenerative disease: midterm clinical and echocardiographic quality outcomes. Circulation  2015; 132: 1961– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  45 Maisano F, La Canna G, Grimaldi A, Vigano G, Blasio A, Mignatti A et al.   Annular-to-leaflet mismatch and the need for reductive annuloplasty in patients undergoing mitral repair for chronic mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse. Am J Cardiol  2007; 99: 1434– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  46 Nishimura RA, Otto C. 2014 ACC/AHA valve guidelines: earlier intervention for chronic mitral regurgitation. Heart  2014; 100: 905– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  47 Suri RM, Schaff HV, Dearani JA, Sundt TM, Daly RC, Mullany CJ et al.   Recovery of left ventricular function after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation caused by leaflet prolapse. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2009; 137: 1071– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  48 Hvass U, Joudinaud T. The papillary muscle sling for ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2010; 139: 418– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  49 Langer F, Schafers HJ. RING plus STRING: papillary muscle repositioning as an adjunctive repair technique for ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2007; 133: 247– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  50 Tibayan FA, Rodriguez F, Langer F, Zasio MK, Bailey L, Liang D et al.   Annular or subvalvular approach to chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2005; 129: 1266– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  51 Kron IL, Green GR, Cope JT. Surgical relocation of the posterior papillary muscle in chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2002; 74: 600– 1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  52 Fattouch K, Castrovinci S, Murana G, Dioguardi P, Guccione F, Nasso G et al.   Papillary muscle relocation and mitral annuloplasty in ischemic mitral valve regurgitation: midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2014; 148: 1947– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  53 Yousefnia MA, Dehestani A, Saidi B, Roshanali F, Mandegar MH, Alaeddini F. Papillary muscle repositioning in valve replacement for left ventricular dysfunction: ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2010; 90: 497– 502. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  54 Buffolo E, Branco JN, Catani R. End-stage cardiomyopathy and secondary mitral insufficiency surgical alternative with prosthesis implant and left ventricular restoration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S266– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  55 Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Iaco AL, Weltert L, Di Lorenzo C. Septal reshaping. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg  2005; 2005:mmcts.2004.000505. 56 Menicanti L, Di Donato M, Frigiola A, Buckberg G, Santambrogio C, Ranucci M et al.   Ischemic mitral regurgitation: intraventricular papillary muscle imbrication without mitral ring during left ventricular restoration. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 123: 1041– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  57 Grossi EA, Patel N, Woo YJ, Goldberg JD, Schwartz CF, Subramanian V et al.   Outcomes of the RESTOR-MV Trial (Randomized Evaluation of a Surgical Treatment for Off-Pump Repair of the Mitral Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol  2010; 56: 1984– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  58 Athanasuleas CL, Buckberg GD, Stanley AW, Siler W, Dor V, Di Donato M et al.   Surgical ventricular restoration in the treatment of congestive heart failure due to post-infarction ventricular dilation. J Am Coll Cardiol  2004; 44: 1439– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  59 Buckberg GD, Athanasuleas CL. The STICH trial: misguided conclusions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2009; 138: 1060– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  60 Suma H, Tanabe H, Uejima T, Suzuki S, Horii T, Isomura T. Selected ventriculoplasty for idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy with advanced congestive heart failure: midterm results and risk analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2007; 32: 912– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  61 Buckberg GD; RESTORE Group. Form versus disease: optimizing geometry during ventricular restoration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S238– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  62 Dor V. Left ventricular aneurysms: the endoventricular circular patch plasty. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1997; 9: 123– 30. Google Scholar PubMed  63 Jatene AD. Left ventricular aneurysmectomy. Resection or reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1985; 89: 321– 31. Google Scholar PubMed  64 Buckberg GD. Basic science review: the helix and the heart. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 863– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  65 Suma H, Horii T, Isomura T, Buckberg G. A new concept of ventricular restoration for nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S207– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  66 Buckberg G, Menicanti L, De Oliveira S, Isomura T. Restoring papillary muscle dimensions during restoration in dilated hearts. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg  2005; 4: 475– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  67 Matsui Y, Fukada Y, Suto Y, Yamauchi H, Luo B, Miyama M et al.   Overlapping cardiac volume reduction operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 395– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  68 Isomura T, Hoshino J, Fukada Y, Kitamura A, Katahira S, Kondo T et al.   Volume reduction rate by surgical ventricular restoration determines late outcome in ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail  2011; 13: 423– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  69 Calafiore AM, Iaco AL, Kheirallah H, Sheikh AA, Al Sayed H, El Rasheed M et al.   Outcome of left ventricular surgical remodelling after the STICH trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2016; 50: 693– 701. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  70 Calafiore AM, Gallina S, Di Mauro M, Gaeta F, Iaco AL, D'Alessandro S et al.   Mitral valve procedure in dilated cardiomyopathy: repair or replacement? Ann Thorac Surg  2001; 71: 1146– 52; discussion 1152–3. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  71 Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Gallina S, Di Giammarco G, Iaco AL, Teodori G et al.   Mitral valve surgery for chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2004; 77: 1989– 97. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  72 Buckberg G, Athanasuleas C, Conte J. Surgical ventricular restoration for the treatment of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol  2012; 9: 703– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  73 Buckberg GD. Surgical ventricular restoration after flawed STICH trial: results when guidelines followed. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2016; 50: 702– 3. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  74 Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T et al.   Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J  2010; 31: 2501– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  75 Cirillo M, Campana M, Brunelli F, Dalla TM, Mhagna Z, Messina A et al.   Time series analysis of physiologic left ventricular reconstruction in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2016; 152: 382– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  76 Di Donato M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L. End-systolic volume following surgical ventricular reconstruction impacts survival in patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail  2010; 12: 375– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  77 Wechsler AS, Sadowski J, Kapelak B, Bartus K, Kalinauskas G, Rucinskas K et al.   Durability of epicardial ventricular restoration without ventriculotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2013; 44: e189– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  78 Ige M, Al-Kindi SG, Attizzani G, Costa M, Oliveira GH. Percutaneous left ventricular restoration. Heart Fail Clin  2015; 11: 261– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/mitral-regurgitation-anatomy-is-destiny-HF5qZDF2SO
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1010-7940
eISSN
1873-734X
D.O.I.
10.1093/ejcts/ezy174
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Mitral regurgitation (MR) occurs when any of the valve and ventricular mitral apparatus components are disturbed. As MR progresses, left ventricular remodelling occurs, ultimately causing heart failure when the enlarging left ventricle (LV) loses its conical shape and becomes globular. Heart failure and lethal ventricular arrhythmias may develop if the left ventricular end-systolic volume index exceeds 55 ml/m2. These adverse changes persist despite satisfactory correction of the annular component of MR. Our goal was to describe this process and summarize evolving interventions that reduce the volume of the left ventricle and rebuild its elliptical shape. This ‘valve/ventricle’ approach addresses the spherical ventricular culprit and offsets the limits of treating MR by correcting only its annular component. Mitral insufficiency, Mitral apparatus, Valve ventricular approach, Surgical ventricular restoration, Ventricular architecture INTRODUCTION Mitral regurgitation (MR) is an abnormal reversal of blood flow from the left ventricle (LV) to the left atrium. It is caused by disruption in any part of the mitral valve (MV) apparatus, which includes 6 components: left atrial wall, annulus, leaflets, chordae tendineae, papillary muscles and the LV wall. This report focuses on the ‘valve/ventricle’ interface. The most common causes of MR are primary, due to MV prolapse, rheumatic heart disease, infective endocarditis and annular calcification or secondary, due to dilated cardiomyopathy from ischaemic or non-ischaemic causes. There are no anatomical lesions of the valves, annulus, chordae tendineae or papillary muscles among the secondary causes of MR, underscoring why valve/ventricle interaction is important. Until now, conventional surgery has addressed mitral replacement or repair linked to Carpentier’s innovative valvular techniques [1, 2]. Unfortunately, successfully restoring MV competence does not prevent a compromised long-term prognosis if the preoperative left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) is >55 ml/m2 [3]. This review emphasizes the importance of understanding and evaluating LV volume and shape in formulating a surgical approach. Adverse late outcomes in a variety of diseases are associated with ventricular dilation, a geometric alteration that can be avoided or treated surgically. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY Heart failure disrupts the ability of the ventricle to generate systolic ejection and to augment filling through diastolic suction. It is progressive and may stem from an index event such as damaged myocardium following infarction or ventricular volume overloading from primary valvular dysfunction. Left ventricular remodelling is the early ventricular response after the enlarged and more spherical LV chamber adapts by activating neurohormonal and cytokine systems. Left ventricular remodelling is progressively maladaptive when the LV becomes more spherical. The increased afterload at end-diastole and early systolic wall stress accentuate specific signal transduction pathways to worsen remodelling [4, 5]. Myocardial fibre orientation is distorted by the abnormal spherical ventricular shape. Systolic torsion falls and there is an independent linear relationship between the left ventricular sphericity and peak systolic twist [6]. Progressive remodelling pulls the papillary muscles apart, altering the chordae tendineae’s natural vertical angulation, thereby tethering the leaflets, which accentuates functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). A poor clinical prognosis follows progressive LV dilation, independent of its cause. LV size rather than ejection fraction (EF) more accurately predicts outcomes following myocardial infarction (Fig. 1) [7]. The Survival and Ventricular Enlargement Trial (SAVE) altered neurohumoral factors pharmacologically after myocardial infarction. More late heart failure and fatal ventricular arrhythmias developed if LV enlargement increased 3-fold [9]. Mortality was 100% when the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) was >7.6 cm versus a 45% death rate if it was <7.6 cm in dilated idiopathic cardiomyopathy [10]. Carabello [3], Detaint et al. [11] and Bonow et al. [12] each studied patients with valve disease postoperatively and found higher late death rates from heart failure and ventricular arrhythmias if the preoperative LVESVI was >55–60 ml/m2. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Left ventricular end-systolic volume index compared to the ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction. An ejection fraction of 35% is highlighted. Values are in ml versus ml/m2, so 150 ml equates with ∼75 ml/m2. Note more non-survivors at higher left ventricular volume. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [8]. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Left ventricular end-systolic volume index compared to the ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction. An ejection fraction of 35% is highlighted. Values are in ml versus ml/m2, so 150 ml equates with ∼75 ml/m2. Note more non-survivors at higher left ventricular volume. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [8]. Bolognese and Cerisano [13] examined the impact of LV remodelling after successful percutaneous coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Despite a patent infarct-related artery, the 80-month prognosis worsened when 15% of the patients developed >20% LV enlargement [13]. LV sphericity is the ratio of the long LV axis to the short LV axis. A sphere ratio is 1.0. Douglas et al. [14] found that 10 of 11 (91%) patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy were dead at 48 months if the sphericity was >0.76, whereas the mortality rate at 72 months was 40% if the sphericity was <0.76 [14]. Myocardial fibre orientation and ventricular shape were used to mathematically predict the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [15]. A normal EF is 60–70% despite isolated heart muscle preparations exhibiting <20% shortening. The helical fibre orientation that defines the normal LV shape produces systolic twisting (torsion) (Fig. 2). Its natural 60° fibre angulation generates an EF of 60%. Alternately, a spherical LV shape orients the fibres more horizontally, resulting in an EF of only 30%. Ventricular twisting in the healthy heart is due to a clockwise rotation of the inner helical arm and counterclockwise rotation of the outer helical arm. Sphericity deforms this natural shape and worsens twisting by weakening the contractile properties because fibre orientation in dilated hearts becomes transverse rather than maintaining the natural helical orientation. Figure 2: View largeDownload slide Myocardial ventricular fibre orientation in normal conical ventricular architecture, where, in the upper tracing, oblique helical fibres have a 60°-angulation to form the apical vortex from the outer (bright arrow) and inner (duller arrow) helical coils. Circumferential fibres with a transverse orientation surround the helix. In the lower tracing, a dilated spherical heart, the helical fibres have a more transverse orientation due to stretch. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [16]. Figure 2: View largeDownload slide Myocardial ventricular fibre orientation in normal conical ventricular architecture, where, in the upper tracing, oblique helical fibres have a 60°-angulation to form the apical vortex from the outer (bright arrow) and inner (duller arrow) helical coils. Circumferential fibres with a transverse orientation surround the helix. In the lower tracing, a dilated spherical heart, the helical fibres have a more transverse orientation due to stretch. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [16]. A unified architectural alteration occurs during ventricular dilation [17] as the normal helical fibre orientation [18] is distorted by flattening the ventricular helix. The resultant fibre angulation change impairs ventricular twisting [16, 19, 20] (Fig. 2). Deformation of the helical and transverse fibres also changes to limit LV mid-wall circumferential strain. The LV sphericity index is the strongest independent predictor of adverse peak apical LV systolic twist in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy [18]. FUNCTIONAL MITRAL REGURGITATION FMR develops from restricted leaflet systolic motion back toward the annular plane. The leaflets are tethered to the displaced papillary muscles, which results in their downward systolic tenting, a movement that causes poor systolic coaptation and produces MR. Tethering and impaired coaptation worsen as the spherical LV and mitral annulus widen. FMR also follows abnormal ventricular conduction (left bundle branch block). Heterogeneous ventricular activation follows prolonged QRS duration, because delayed activation produces myocardial systolic dys-synchrony. The septum billows, creating FMR by tenting the adjacently connected papillary muscles. Cardiac resynchronization produces more homogeneous electrical activation to sometimes reverse remodelling [21] and return torsion [22]. Evaluation of FMR is aided by exercise testing. Echocardiography semiquantitates the extent of the FMR. Without this preferred ambulatory evaluation, inotropes can be delivered intraoperatively to increase blood pressure and afterload. Current surgical treatment of FMR aims to reduce annular size and the septal-lateral dimension using partial or full rings. Partial banding proponents believe minimal dilation exists between the trigones despite ventricular dilation. This observation differs from de Oliviera’s observation that annular dilation was proportional in ischaemic and non-ischaemic dilated hearts [23]. Rigid rather than flexible bands or rings are preferred in ischaemic cardiomyopathy [24] because they pull the lateral wall medially and fix it in a systolic position. Downsizing the annulus still yields a 5-year mortality rate of 50% because of failure to correct the ventricular component of the mitral apparatus [25]. To achieve leaflet coaptation in FMR, the secondary chords of the anterior mitral leaflet have been cut to relieve tenting caused by posterior papillary muscle displacement, implying no adverse effects on the LV [26, 27]. This approach disrupts the natural papillary muscle leaflet connection that maintains an elliptical ventricular shape and contradicts Lillehei’s 1964 emphasis on preserving the subvalvular apparatus [28]. Experimental studies confirm that this surgical technique consistently increases LV sphericity [29, 30]. In 1 study, preoperative LV dimensions were recorded to determine if restrictive mitral annuloplasty with coronary revascularization reverses remodelling in 100 consecutive patients with cardiomyopathy. The 5-year mortality rate was 49% when left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) was >51 mm in 28 of these patients, whose LVEDD was >65 mm; these values reflect the cut-off levels for expecting reverse remodelling [31, 32]. Similarly, DeBonis reviewed annuloplasty in dilated hearts and found recurrent FMR and symptom worsening in half of the patients when the LV volume and sphericity index increased [26, 33]. The importance of LV volume and prognosis is shown in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trial that randomized 301 patients with moderate ischaemic MR to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or MV repair plus CABG [34]. LVESVI was the primary 1-year end point, and more cases of fatal congestive heart failure and lethal ventricular arrhythmias developed if it was >55–60 ml/m2 [3, 11, 12]. Normal LVESVI is 25 ml/m2 [35]. LVESVI was reduced by approximately 16% in both study groups, reaching a final index of 46 ml/m2. LV remodelling did not reverse this abnormal stretch since postoperative LVESVI still remained almost twice the normal value [34]. This marginal reduction of LVESVI attained statistical significance, but the retained large LV volumes resulted in poor long-term outcomes. The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network investigators also randomized 251 patients to repair with annuloplasty versus MV replacement with chordal preservation [36]. The LVESVI change was marginal at 6.6 and 6.8 ml/m2. Postoperative volumes were still large: LVESVI 55 ± 25 ml/m2 (repair) and 61 ± 32 ml/m2 (replacement). The 12-month adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, functional status and quality of life were similar, but the repair group sustained a higher incidence (33% vs 2%) of recurrent moderate or severe MR [36]. At 2 years, 69% of patients having repair developed moderate to severe MR or died. The mechanism for recurrent MR is increased MV leaflet tethering [37], emphasizing why the surgeon must focus on LV size. A large multicentre report from Italy comparing MV replacement to repair [38] found similar 8-year survival rates (82% ± 3% for repair and 80% ± 5% for replacement), but the LVEF did not improve in either group. MV repair was a strong predictor of reoperation. The dilated LV continued to damage postoperative function. An alternate approach for FMR involves supplementing annuloplasty by suturing the centre of the anterior leaflet to the posterior leaflet, thereby creating a double mitral orifice (the Alfieri repair) [39]. Reverse LV remodelling occurred in 52% of 111 patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, but remodelling remained unchanged in 48% of patients [33]. Reverse LV remodelling improved repair durability and clinical outcome, yet persistent and progressive remodelling developed in more dilated hearts. The goal of improved leaflet coaptation was addressed by pericardial patching of the anterior MV leaflet in patients with FMR with tented leaflets from LV dilation [40]. Despite achieving a competent annulus, this approach does not address the dilated ventricle or document long-term reversed remodelling. Conventional use of the term ‘remodelling’ may create confusion because it describes increased LVEDD, spherical LV shape and reduced EF; reversed remodelling describes the return of the LVEDD, shape and EF toward baseline. Bockeria and Averina found that preoperative remodelling correlated with ventricular fibrosis, measured by MRA, but that postoperative fibrosis was unchanged or continued despite reversed remodelling [41]. LVESVI fell from 59 ml/m2 to 45 ml/m2, but fibrosis was initiated and progressed with enlarged ventricular volumes. Consequently, any mention of reverse remodelling should also include the extent of LVESVI reduction. This will avoid initiating the confusion of relating remodelling to improvement. ORGANIC MITRAL REGURGITATION Primary leaflet or chordal disease results in organic MR, leading to the development of several repair methods [1]. Excision of redundant leaflet tissue now includes use of neochords to promote coaptation by resuspending the leaflets [42]. Minimally invasive and robotic approaches are being used more frequently [43, 44]. The Alfieri method of fixing anterior and posterior mitral leaflet coaptation with edge-to-edge central mattress sutures is also done with the transcatheter MitraClip [45]. The 6-month incidence of reverse remodelling depends upon the extent of LVESVI reduction. It was less at 25% in more dilated hearts (63–47 ml/m2) but fell more (41%) with smaller preoperative LV volumes (49–28 ml/m2) [42, 43]. The 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association valve guidelines point to earlier intervention for chronic MR because of the poor outcomes if LVEF <60%, LVESD >45 mm or LVESVI >60 ml/m2 [3]. Currently, asymptomatic patients with preserved LV function (LVEF >60%) are considered for mitral repair (Class IIa) if the LVESD is <40 mm, provided there is a 95% chance that the repair can be done with a mortality rate <1% [46]. Early intervention for MR is the new standard to prevent LV dilation. The Mayo Clinic reported outcomes in >1000 patients undergoing repair or replacement and noted that return to normal LVEF was better if the preoperative LVEF was >65% and the LVESD was <36 mm [47]. THE VENTRICULAR CULPRIT The aforementioned findings demonstrate that an atrial level repair of MR has consistently failed to prevent progressive LV dysfunction because the ventricle and papillary muscles of the mitral apparatus were not addressed. Annular correction introduces the important first step in modifying components of the mitral apparatus, which form the LV trilogy: the LV base, its mid wall and apex (Fig. 3). The dilemma is how the annulus, leaflets, chordae, papillary muscles and the underlying ventricular wall structures interact to produce leaflet coaptation, because a ‘tug of war’ seems to exist between them (Fig. 4). Figure 3: View largeDownload slide The ‘ventricular trilogy’ comprising the cardiac base containing the mitral annulus, the left ventricular mid-wall whose equatorial plane widens more than lengthens in the spherical configuration and the cardiac apex that changes from a normal conical to a spherical contour. Figure 3: View largeDownload slide The ‘ventricular trilogy’ comprising the cardiac base containing the mitral annulus, the left ventricular mid-wall whose equatorial plane widens more than lengthens in the spherical configuration and the cardiac apex that changes from a normal conical to a spherical contour. Figure 4: View largeDownload slide Tug of war between ventricular components to change the mitral valve leaflet coaptation zone. These elements include the widened base, the dilated chamber to tether leaflets and widened distance between papillary muscles that further tethers chordae/leaflet annulus attachment. Ao: aorta; LA: leaflet annulus; LV: left ventricle; PM: papillary muscles. Figure 4: View largeDownload slide Tug of war between ventricular components to change the mitral valve leaflet coaptation zone. These elements include the widened base, the dilated chamber to tether leaflets and widened distance between papillary muscles that further tethers chordae/leaflet annulus attachment. Ao: aorta; LA: leaflet annulus; LV: left ventricle; PM: papillary muscles. Subvalvular techniques have been developed to treat MR in the remodelled LV. Hvass addressed massively dilated LV dimensions (mean LVESVI 70 mm) in Class III and IV heart failure by implanting a slightly downsized ring with an intraventricular papillary muscle sling to bring them together. They are restored to a more normal position with a 4-mm Gore-Tex tube sling. The reduced mitral leaflet tenting resulted in improved LV dimension, LVEF and LV sphericity ratio at the 1-year follow-up examination [48]. Langer supplemented annuloplasty in patients with FMR by reducing leaflet tethering (when the latter was >10 mm) by passing a suture from the head of the papillary muscle into the mitral annular fibrosa. He exteriorized it in the area between the non-coronary and left coronary aortic cusps [49]. Repositioning the displaced posterior papillary muscle toward the fibrosa was accomplished by tying the suture under echocardiographic guidance in the beating heart. Using papillary muscles for correcting severe MR supplements annuloplasty is done by suturing their bodies to the mitral annulus [50, 51]. Initial experimental followed by clinical studies demonstrate that this technique reverses LV remodelling, decreases the tenting area and improves the leaflet coaptation depth. At 5 years, only 3% of patients developed moderate recurrent MR [52]. A comparison of standard MV replacement with MV replacement supplemented with papillary muscle positioning was done in 50 randomized patients with FMR and LV dysfunction. The papillary muscle heads were sutured to the corresponding annulus. The 3-year follow-up data showed that only the papillary muscle positioning group sustained increased LVEF (34–45%), lower LVESVI and reduced sphericity ratio (0.64–0.49) [53]. Buffalo operated on 116 patients with secondary MR from advanced heart failure with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy [54], including 11 patients on intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. All received a bioprosthesis, and he addressed the ventricular component of MR by preserving all chords and by pulling the papillary muscle heads into the annulus for LV reshaping. The hospital mortality rate was 16%. LVEF, sphericity, functional class and stroke volume improved progressively. Patients with and without non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy received the same procedure, so that results in patients with ischaemia may have been impacted by the residual scar. Calafiore et al. [55] described a ventricular approach for FMR in dilated ischaemic cardiomyopathy by creating a conical ventricular contour without addressing the mitral leaflets. He rebuilt the septum by anchoring an intraventricular patch to normal muscle or scar to restore the LV elliptical shape. In 77 patients, MR fell from grade 2.5–0.6, and the 2.5-year survival rate in patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I–II was 88% and 85%, respectively. Menicanti et al. [56] addressed all mitral components in patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and FMR. He used the standard surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) operation that included a ventriculotomy, patch placement to restore LV elliptical shape, imbrication of the papillary muscles and suture reduction of the posterior annulus. Operative mortality was 15%. The LVEF did not appreciably change but the LVESVI fell from 98 ± 32 to 63 ± 22 ml/m2; functional class improved and survival was 63% at the 30-month follow-up. The Coapsys device treats MR by reshaping the spherical dilated ventricle without ventriculotomy. In the beating heart, anterior and posterior epicardial pads are drawn together by a transventricular chord that decreases the mitral annulus and the septal-lateral dimension by decreasing its short axis to reshape the ventricle. The randomized multicentre RESTOR-MV (Randomized Evaluation of a Surgical Treatment for Off-Pump Repair of the Mitral Valve) study of 165 patients with FMR [57] compared Coapsys ventricular reshaping with CABG to conventional mitral repair with CABG. Patients with reshaping had an improved 2-year survival (87% vs 77%) rate and significantly fewer adverse major outcomes. MR fell from grade 2.54 at baseline to 0.52 at 1 year and to 0.35 at 2 years. The Coapsys device is not available, but their findings confirm the importance of changing LV shape and volume by addressing the ventriculomitral complex rather than only employing conventional mitral repair in patients with FMR. The importance of addressing the ventricular component of MR in ischaemic cardiomyopathy has evolved because of marginal long-term outcomes with annular reduction alone. The RESTORE (Reconstructive Endoventricular Surgery returning Torsion Original Radius Elliptical Shape) study focused on the vessels, valve and ventricle [58] in a 1198-patient, multi-institutional international registry. Inclusion criteria were previous transmural anterior myocardial infarction, significant ventricular dilation (LVESVI ≥60 ml/m2), and an asynergic (non-contractile) regional scar of ≥35% of the LV circumference. During SVR, the anteroseptal, apical and anterolateral LV scarred segments were excluded by an intracardiac patch or by direct closure. CABG and mitral procedures were performed concomitantly (Fig. 5). MV procedures were performed in 22% of patients. They had larger ventricles and more reduced EF. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in the MV repair/replacement group (9% vs 4%), but the 5-year survival rate was similar (69 ± 4% vs 71± 3%) to that of the group without mitral intervention. MV replacement was rare (30 patients, <1%). Findings from this registry confirm the importance of addressing the vessels, valve and ventricular components when treating FMR. Suma extended the ventricular approach to patients with MR with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy by showing that SVR improved prognosis over repair alone when the LVESVI was >150 ml/m2 [60]. Lethal late arrhythmias and fatal heart failure were reduced in sharp contrast to traditional reports of poor surgical outcomes with LVESVI >55 ml/m2 [3]. Figure 5: View largeDownload slide Upper left: normal left ventricular conical chamber. Upper right: dilated left ventricle with a spherical shape due to stretching of remote muscle following a myocardial infarction. Lower: Surgical ventricular restoration changes left ventricular size and shape to rebuild the natural conical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [59]. Figure 5: View largeDownload slide Upper left: normal left ventricular conical chamber. Upper right: dilated left ventricle with a spherical shape due to stretching of remote muscle following a myocardial infarction. Lower: Surgical ventricular restoration changes left ventricular size and shape to rebuild the natural conical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg et al. [59]. The SAVE (Septal Anterior Ventricular Exclusion) or ‘Pacopexy’ [in recognition of Francisco (Paco) Torrent-Guasp] is an operation that restores the LV elliptical shape with an oblique intracardiac patch from the LV apex to the high septum beneath the aortic valve (Fig. 6). This technique excludes normal septal muscle to rebuild form and expands the seminal contributions by Dor [62] and Jatene [63] that only focus on scar exclusion [64, 65]. The widened papillary muscles are also imbricated as suggested by the RESTORE team [66] and Matsui et al. [67]. Figure 6: View largeDownload slide Changes in left ventricular architecture after surgical ventricular restoration. Upper tracing shows preoperative spherical dilated left ventricle after infarction (hatched area is scar). Lower left image shows retained globular shape if only the scar is excluded and dilated remote muscle persists. Lower right image treats the ‘form’ by rebuilding ellipse to create a conical rather than a spherical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg [61]. Figure 6: View largeDownload slide Changes in left ventricular architecture after surgical ventricular restoration. Upper tracing shows preoperative spherical dilated left ventricle after infarction (hatched area is scar). Lower left image shows retained globular shape if only the scar is excluded and dilated remote muscle persists. Lower right image treats the ‘form’ by rebuilding ellipse to create a conical rather than a spherical shape. Reprinted with permission from Buckberg [61]. The extent of LV volume reduction on long-term outcomes was shown by Isomura in 90 patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy who underwent SVR. The 8-year survival rate was 82% in 50 patients undergoing mitral repair, and SVR was most effective when a >33% volume reduction achieved an LVESVI <90 ml/m2 [68]. Rebuilding the shape of the LV was also a key goal: The 7-year survival rate was 72% with a conical shape versus 62% with a spherical shape. The role of substantially reducing LV size was further documented by Calafiore’s recent report of 113 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy with FMR undergoing SVR and either mitral repair (2/3) or replacement (1/3) [69]. Ventricular volume was reduced >40% and repair versus replacement was determined by mitral leaflet coaptation depth: Repair was used if it was <10 mm and replacement, if it was >10 mm [70, 71]. The 5-year survival rate was 81% if preoperative MR was not severe and only 11% were in NYHA III/IV postoperatively. Calafiore adhered to the initial inclusion and surgical performance criteria originally envisioned by the STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure) trial. Unfortunately, the STICH randomized trial was flawed because of its departure from its original design and from the SVR registry guidelines [72, 73]. However, the RESTORE and other similar registries became the benchmarks in establishing the guidelines for SVR by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Surgeons [74], which included LV volume, documentation of scar and experienced centres. The functional impact of restoring LV size and shape was highlighted by Cirillo who reported that rebuilding normal cardiac shape restored natural twisting or torsion in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy [75]. Patients with FMR were not included, but achievement of an elliptical form was critical because restored torsion persisted for 7.9 years without hospital deaths or late heart failure deaths. These findings echoed those of Isomura and emphasize that correction of shape is vital to address FMR’s ventricular culprit. Volume reduction is also critical because mortality after SVR is increased with a postoperative LVESVI >60 ml/m2 [76]. The significance of reshaping the LV and of reducing volume in patients with cardiomyopathy has prompted the development of innovative procedures without open-heart surgery. One device anchors cables between the LV free wall and the septum to reduce volume and reshape the ventricle. LVESVI was reduced 36% and 40% from baseline at 6- and 12-month follow-up examinations in 31 patients, respectively [77]. The LV Parachute device achieves LV reduction non-invasively. An umbrella-shaped nitinol frame covered with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene occlusive membrane is expanded following percutaneous passage across the aortic valve into the LV apex. Its anchors engage the myocardium to seal off the distal akinetic LV chamber. Currently, 65 US centres are running trials comparing the Parachute with optimal medical therapy in patients with a dyskinetic or aneurysmal LV apex and <35% LVEF [78]. CONCLUSIONS MR is due to a disturbance of any of the 6 components of the mitral apparatus. LV remodelling progresses as the LV contour becomes more spherical. The scarred or dysfunctional LV is a vital culprit in this process. Addressing MR surgically by reducing the LV volume and restoring the shape together with annular reduction can change the outlook for patients with dilated and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Conflict of interest: none declared. REFERENCES 1 Carpentier A. Cardiac valve surgery—the ‘French correction’. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1983; 86: 323– 37. Google Scholar PubMed  2 Carpentier A, Adams DH, Filsoufi F. Reconstructive Valve Surgery: From Valve Analysis to Valve Reconstruction . Philadelphia, PA, USA: Saunders; Elsevier, 2016. 3 Carabello BA. The changing unnatural history of valvular regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  1992; 53: 191– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4 Force T, Michael A, Kilter H, Haq S. Stretch-activated pathways and left ventricular remodeling. J Card Fail  2002; 8: S351– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5 Mann DL. Left ventricular size and shape: determinants of mechanical signal transduction pathways. Heart Fail Rev  2005; 10: 95– 100. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  6 Kauer F, Geleijnse ML, van Dalen BM. Role of left ventricular twist mechanics in cardiomyopathies, dance of the helices. World J Cardiol  2015; 7: 476– 82. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7 White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, Brandt PW, Whitlock RM, Wild CJ. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation  1987; 76: 44– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8 Buckberg GD, Coghlan HC, Torrent-Guasp F. The structure and function of the helical heart and its buttress wrapping. V. Anatomic and physiologic considerations in the healthy and failing heart. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2001; 13: 358– 85. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9 St John Sutton M, Pfeffer MA, Plappert T, Rouleau JL, Moye LA, Dagenais GR et al.   Quantitative two-dimensional echocardiographic measurements are major predictors of adverse cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction. The protective effects of captopril. Circulation  1994; 89: 68– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10 St John SM, Lee D, Rouleau JL, Goldman S, Plappert T, Braunwald E et al.   Left ventricular remodeling and ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction. Circulation  2003; 107: 2577– 82. Google Scholar PubMed  11 Bonow RO, Rosing DR, Kent KM, Epstein SE. Timing of operation for chronic aortic regurgitation. Am J Cardiol  1982; 50: 325– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12 Detaint D, Maalouf J, Tribouilloy C, Mahoney DW, Schaff HV, Tajik AJ et al.   Congestive heart failure complicating aortic regurgitation with medical and surgical management: a prospective study of traditional and quantitative echocardiographic markers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2008; 136: 1549– 57. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13 Bolognese L, Cerisano G. Early predictors of left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J  1999; 138: S79– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14 Douglas PS, Morrow R, Ioli A, Reichek N. Left ventricular shape, afterload and survival in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol  1989; 13: 311– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15 Sallin EA. Fiber orientation and ejection fraction in the human left ventricle. Biophys J  1969; 9: 954– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16 Buckberg GD, Hoffman JI, Coghlan HC, Nanda NC. Ventricular structure-function relations in health and disease: part II. Clinical considerations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 47: 778– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17 Sabbah HN, Kono T, Stein PD, Mancini GB, Goldstein S. Left ventricular shape changes during the course of evolving heart failure. Am J Physiol  1992; 263: H266– 70. Google Scholar PubMed  18 van Dalen BM, Kauer F, Vletter WB, Soliman OI, van der Zwaan HB, Ten Cate FJ et al.   Influence of cardiac shape on left ventricular twist. J Appl Physiol (1985)  2010; 108: 146– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19 Buckberg G, Hoffman JI, Mahajan A, Saleh S, Coghlan C. Cardiac mechanics revisited: the relationship of cardiac architecture to ventricular function. Circulation  2008; 118: 2571– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20 Buckberg GD, Hoffman JI, Coghlan HC, Nanda NC. Ventricular structure-function relations in health and disease: part I. The normal heart. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 47: 587– 601. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21 Jackson T, Sohal M, Chen Z, Child N, Sammut E, Behar J et al.   A U-shaped type II contraction pattern in patients with strict left bundle branch block predicts super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm  2014; 11: 1790– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  22 Rüssel IK, Götte MJW. New insights in LV torsion for the selection of cardiac resynchronisation therapy candidates. Neth Heart J  2011; 19: 386– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  23 Hueb AC, Jatene FB, Moreira LF, Pomerantzeff PM, Kallas E, de Oliveira SA. Ventricular remodeling and mitral valve modifications in dilated cardiomyopathy: new insights from anatomic study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 1216– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24 Spoor MT, Geltz A, Bolling SF. Flexible versus nonflexible mitral valve rings for congestive heart failure: differential durability of repair. Circulation  2006; 114: I67– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25 Bolling SF, Pagani FD, Deeb GM, Bach DS. Intermediate-term outcome of mitral reconstruction in cardiomyopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1998; 115: 381– 6. discussion 387–8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26 Hung J, Papakostas L, Tahta SA, Hardy BG, Bollen BA, Duran CM et al.   Mechanism of recurrent ischemic mitral regurgitation after annuloplasty: continued LV remodeling as a moving target. Circulation  2004; 110: Ii85– 90. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27 Fayad G, Marechaux S, Modine T, Azzaoui R, Larrue B, Ennezat PV et al.   Chordal cutting VIA aortotomy in ischemic mitral regurgitation: surgical and echocardiographic study. J Card Surg  2008; 23: 52– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28 Lillehei CW, Levy MJ, Bonnabeau RCJ. Mitral valve replacement with preservation of papillary muscles and chordae tendieae to canine global left ventricular systolic function. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1964; 47: 532– 43. Google Scholar PubMed  29 Rodriguez F, Langer F, Harrington KB, Tibayan FA, Zasio MK, Cheng A et al.   Importance of mitral valve second-order chordae for left ventricular geometry, wall thickening mechanics, and global systolic function. Circulation  2004; 110: Ii115– 22. Google Scholar PubMed  30 Nielsen SL, Timek TA, Green GR, Dagum P, Daughters GT, Hasenkam JM et al.   Influence of anterior mitral leaflet second-order chordae tendineae on left ventricular systolic function. Circulation  2003; 108: 486– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31 Braun J, Bax JJ, Versteegh MI, Voigt PG, Holman ER, Klautz RJ et al.   Preoperative left ventricular dimensions predict reverse remodeling following restrictive mitral annuloplasty in ischemic mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2005; 27: 847– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32 Braun J, van de Veire NR, Klautz RJ, Versteegh MI, Holman ER, Westenberg JJ et al.   Restrictive mitral annuloplasty cures ischemic mitral regurgitation and heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg  2008; 85: 430– 6; discussion 436–7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33 De Bonis M, Lapenna E, Verzini A, La Canna G, Grimaldi A, Torracca L et al.   Recurrence of mitral regurgitation parallels the absence of left ventricular reverse remodeling after mitral repair in advanced dilated cardiomyopathy. Ann Thorac Surg  2008; 85: 932– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  34 Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, Voisine P, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ et al.   Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med  2014; 371: 2178– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  35 McManus DD, Shah SJ, Fabi MR, Rosen A, Whooley MA, Schiller NB. Prognostic value of left ventricular end-systolic volume index as a predictor of heart failure hospitalization in stable coronary artery disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr  2009; 22: 190– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  36 Acker MA, Parides MK, Perrault LP, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, Voisine P et al.   Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med  2014; 370: 23– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  37 Kron IL, Hung J, Overbey JR, Bouchard D, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ et al.   Predicting recurrent mitral regurgitation after mitral valve repair for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2015; 149: 752– 61.e1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  38 Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Vizzardi E, D'Aloia A, De Cicco G, Luca F et al.   Mitral valve repair or replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation? The Italian Study on the Treatment of Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation (ISTIMIR). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2013; 20: 114– 39; discussion 137–8. 39 Alfieri O, Maisano F, De Bonis M, Stefano PL, Torracca L, Oppizzi M et al.   The double-orifice technique in mitral valve repair: a simple solution for complex problems. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2001; 122: 674– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  40 Kincaid EH, Riley RD, Hines MH, Hammon JW, Kon ND. Anterior leaflet augmentation for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2004; 78: 564– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  41 Bockeria O, Kislitsina O, Svetlana A, Averina I. Effect myocardial fibrosis on the left ventricular remodeling, left and right ventricular function and prognosis in patients with acquired heart diesease using contrasting MRI and 2D speckle tracking. J Am Coll Cardiol  2016; 67: 2209. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  42 David TE, Bos J, Rakowski H. Mitral valve repair by replacement of chordae tendineae with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1991; 101: 495– 501. Google Scholar PubMed  43 Glauber M, Miceli A, Canarutto D, Lio A, Murzi M, Gilmanov D et al.   Early and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right minithoracotomy: a 10-year experience in 1604 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg  2015; 10: 181. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  44 Suri RM, Taggarse A, Burkhart HM, Daly RC, Mauermann W, Nishimura RA et al.   Robotic mitral valve repair for simple and complex degenerative disease: midterm clinical and echocardiographic quality outcomes. Circulation  2015; 132: 1961– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  45 Maisano F, La Canna G, Grimaldi A, Vigano G, Blasio A, Mignatti A et al.   Annular-to-leaflet mismatch and the need for reductive annuloplasty in patients undergoing mitral repair for chronic mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse. Am J Cardiol  2007; 99: 1434– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  46 Nishimura RA, Otto C. 2014 ACC/AHA valve guidelines: earlier intervention for chronic mitral regurgitation. Heart  2014; 100: 905– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  47 Suri RM, Schaff HV, Dearani JA, Sundt TM, Daly RC, Mullany CJ et al.   Recovery of left ventricular function after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation caused by leaflet prolapse. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2009; 137: 1071– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  48 Hvass U, Joudinaud T. The papillary muscle sling for ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2010; 139: 418– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  49 Langer F, Schafers HJ. RING plus STRING: papillary muscle repositioning as an adjunctive repair technique for ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2007; 133: 247– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  50 Tibayan FA, Rodriguez F, Langer F, Zasio MK, Bailey L, Liang D et al.   Annular or subvalvular approach to chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2005; 129: 1266– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  51 Kron IL, Green GR, Cope JT. Surgical relocation of the posterior papillary muscle in chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2002; 74: 600– 1. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  52 Fattouch K, Castrovinci S, Murana G, Dioguardi P, Guccione F, Nasso G et al.   Papillary muscle relocation and mitral annuloplasty in ischemic mitral valve regurgitation: midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2014; 148: 1947– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  53 Yousefnia MA, Dehestani A, Saidi B, Roshanali F, Mandegar MH, Alaeddini F. Papillary muscle repositioning in valve replacement for left ventricular dysfunction: ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2010; 90: 497– 502. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  54 Buffolo E, Branco JN, Catani R. End-stage cardiomyopathy and secondary mitral insufficiency surgical alternative with prosthesis implant and left ventricular restoration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S266– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  55 Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Iaco AL, Weltert L, Di Lorenzo C. Septal reshaping. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg  2005; 2005:mmcts.2004.000505. 56 Menicanti L, Di Donato M, Frigiola A, Buckberg G, Santambrogio C, Ranucci M et al.   Ischemic mitral regurgitation: intraventricular papillary muscle imbrication without mitral ring during left ventricular restoration. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 123: 1041– 50. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  57 Grossi EA, Patel N, Woo YJ, Goldberg JD, Schwartz CF, Subramanian V et al.   Outcomes of the RESTOR-MV Trial (Randomized Evaluation of a Surgical Treatment for Off-Pump Repair of the Mitral Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol  2010; 56: 1984– 93. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  58 Athanasuleas CL, Buckberg GD, Stanley AW, Siler W, Dor V, Di Donato M et al.   Surgical ventricular restoration in the treatment of congestive heart failure due to post-infarction ventricular dilation. J Am Coll Cardiol  2004; 44: 1439– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  59 Buckberg GD, Athanasuleas CL. The STICH trial: misguided conclusions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2009; 138: 1060– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  60 Suma H, Tanabe H, Uejima T, Suzuki S, Horii T, Isomura T. Selected ventriculoplasty for idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy with advanced congestive heart failure: midterm results and risk analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2007; 32: 912– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  61 Buckberg GD; RESTORE Group. Form versus disease: optimizing geometry during ventricular restoration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S238– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  62 Dor V. Left ventricular aneurysms: the endoventricular circular patch plasty. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1997; 9: 123– 30. Google Scholar PubMed  63 Jatene AD. Left ventricular aneurysmectomy. Resection or reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  1985; 89: 321– 31. Google Scholar PubMed  64 Buckberg GD. Basic science review: the helix and the heart. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 863– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  65 Suma H, Horii T, Isomura T, Buckberg G. A new concept of ventricular restoration for nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2006; 29: S207– 12. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  66 Buckberg G, Menicanti L, De Oliveira S, Isomura T. Restoring papillary muscle dimensions during restoration in dilated hearts. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg  2005; 4: 475– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  67 Matsui Y, Fukada Y, Suto Y, Yamauchi H, Luo B, Miyama M et al.   Overlapping cardiac volume reduction operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2002; 124: 395– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  68 Isomura T, Hoshino J, Fukada Y, Kitamura A, Katahira S, Kondo T et al.   Volume reduction rate by surgical ventricular restoration determines late outcome in ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail  2011; 13: 423– 31. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  69 Calafiore AM, Iaco AL, Kheirallah H, Sheikh AA, Al Sayed H, El Rasheed M et al.   Outcome of left ventricular surgical remodelling after the STICH trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2016; 50: 693– 701. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  70 Calafiore AM, Gallina S, Di Mauro M, Gaeta F, Iaco AL, D'Alessandro S et al.   Mitral valve procedure in dilated cardiomyopathy: repair or replacement? Ann Thorac Surg  2001; 71: 1146– 52; discussion 1152–3. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  71 Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Gallina S, Di Giammarco G, Iaco AL, Teodori G et al.   Mitral valve surgery for chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. Ann Thorac Surg  2004; 77: 1989– 97. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  72 Buckberg G, Athanasuleas C, Conte J. Surgical ventricular restoration for the treatment of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol  2012; 9: 703– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  73 Buckberg GD. Surgical ventricular restoration after flawed STICH trial: results when guidelines followed. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2016; 50: 702– 3. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  74 Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T et al.   Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J  2010; 31: 2501– 55. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  75 Cirillo M, Campana M, Brunelli F, Dalla TM, Mhagna Z, Messina A et al.   Time series analysis of physiologic left ventricular reconstruction in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg  2016; 152: 382– 91. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  76 Di Donato M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L. End-systolic volume following surgical ventricular reconstruction impacts survival in patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail  2010; 12: 375– 81. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  77 Wechsler AS, Sadowski J, Kapelak B, Bartus K, Kalinauskas G, Rucinskas K et al.   Durability of epicardial ventricular restoration without ventriculotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg  2013; 44: e189– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  78 Ige M, Al-Kindi SG, Attizzani G, Costa M, Oliveira GH. Percutaneous left ventricular restoration. Heart Fail Clin  2015; 11: 261– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgeryOxford University Press

Published: Apr 26, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off