Vol. 50 | No. 2 | July-December 2022 Back

Open Access

Outcomes of Aortic Regurgitation After Percutaneous Transmitral Commissurotomy: Prospective Cohort

Bryan Rene F. Toledano, Lilian Ville Bacalso, Maria Johanna Jaluage-Villanueva, Sharon Marisse Lacson
Dec 2022 DOI 10.69944/pjc.9ce41e5a6c

Abstract

PURPOSE: The combined mitral stenosis (MS) and aortic regurgitation (AR) impose opposite  loading conditions on the left ventricle. Physiologically, the relief of MS may increase the severity  of AR. 

METHODS: Participants were Filipinos 19 years or older, admitted because of severe MS with  mild to moderate AR. The outcome of percutaneous transmitral commissurotomy (PTMC) was  divided into two groups: (1) significant AR that included the increase in severity of AR: mild to moderate/severe or moderate to severe AR, and (2) the insignificant AR group, which included  any decrease in the severity of AR: moderate to mild or persistence of mild or moderate AR.  These groups were compared from baseline, 24 hours, 1 month, and 6 months using the same  echocardiographic parameters. The numerical data between significant and insignificant tricuspid  regurgitation were compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and categorical data  using the χ2 test. 

RESULTS: A total of 43 participants were analyzed. At 24 hours post-PTMC, the significant AR  group had significantly lower left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (3.83 vs 4.5, P = 0.008), left  ventricular end-systolic dimension (2.33 vs 2.97, P = 0.017), right ventricular fraction area change  (38.6 vs 48.7, P = 0.025), and left ventricular outflow tract (1.66 vs 2.02, P = 0.020) and higher  systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (57 vs 32.4, P = 0.008). At 1 and 6 months, there were no  significant differences in echocardiographic parameters between the significant and insignificant  AR groups’ left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (4.58 vs 4.5, 4.64 vs 4.57), left ventricular  end-systolic dimension (3.1 vs 2.9, 2.9 vs 2.91), and systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (28  vs 34.7, 33.8 vs 32.4). Those with significant AR had a higher mean Wilkin score (mean, 10;  P = 0.007) and subvalvular thickening (mean, 2.6; P = 0.005). 

CONCLUSION: On short-term follow-up, the presence of mild to moderate AR before PTMC  does not lead to severe AR. The outcomes regardless of the group showed a good functional  class and no significant echocardiographic differences when compared. 

KEYWORDS: rheumatic heart disease, mitral stenosis, percutaneous transmitral  commissurotomy

References
  1. Reyes DRC, Ramos EJF, et al. PCP health forum: RF/RHD efforts up. Heart J 30:48.
  2. Sanchez-Ledesma M, Cruz-Gonzalez I, Sanchez PL, et al. Impact of concomitant aortic regurgitation on percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty: Immediate results, short-term, and long-term outcome. Am Heart J 2008;156(2):361–366.
  3. Unger P, Clavel M, Lindman B, Mathieu P, Pibarot P. Pathophysiology and management of multivalvular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016;13(7):429–440.
  4. Gash AK, Carabello BA, Kent RL, Frazier JA, Spann JF. Left ventricular performance in patients with coexistent mitral stenosis and aortic insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984;3:703–711.
  5. Cohn LH, Mason DT, Ross J Jr, Morrow AG, Braunwald E. Preoperative assessment of aortic regurgitation in patients with mitral valve disease. Am J Cardiol 1967;19:177–182.
  6. Bacalso LE, Lacson SA. Association of post-procedural echocardiographic parameters with outcomes in rheumatic mitral stenosis with aortic valve involvement post-PTMC. Philippine Heart Center. 2017.
  7. Sadr-Ameli M, Heidarali M, Saedi S, et al. Natural history of aortic regurgitation following percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Res Cardiovasc Med 2013;2(1):50–54.
  8. Saedi S, Heidarali M, Saedi T, Bakhshandeh Abkenar H, Sadr-Ameli MA. Short-term changes in aortic regurgitation after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Int Cardivasc Res J 2013;7(1):5–7.
  9. Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2017;30(4):303–371. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.01.007.
  10. Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009;10(1):1–25. doi: 10.1093/ejechocard/jen303.
  11. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28(1):1–39, e14. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2014.10.003.
  12. Mann DL, Zipes DP, Libby P, Bonow RO, Braunwald E. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015.
  13. Movahed MR, Ahmadi-Kashani M, Kasravi B, Saito Y. Increased prevalence of mitral stenosis in women. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2006;19(7):911–913. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2006.01.017.
  14. Palacios IF, Sanchez PL, Harrell LC, Weyman AE, Block PC. Which patients benefit from percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty? Prevalvuloplasty and postvalvuloplasty variables that predict long-term outcome. Circulation 2002;105(12):1465–1471. doi: 10.1161/01. cir.0000012143.27196.f4.
  15. Konstam MA, Kramer DG, Patel AR, Maron MS, Udelson JE. Left ventricular remodeling in heart failure current concepts in clinical significance and assessment. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:98.
License

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.