Influence of procedural differences on mitral valve configuration after surgical repair for functional mitral regurgitation: in which direction should the papillary muscle be relocated?

Table 1 Baseline characteristics

	RMAP	Posterior PMR	Anterior PMR	P-value
	(n = 23)	(n = 10)	(n = 6)	P-value
Age, years	70 ± 6	65 ± 7	68 ± 8	0.16
Male	17 (73.9)	9 (90.0)	3 (50.0)	0.21
NYHA functional class
1	2 (8.7)	0	0	0.48
2	12 (52.2)	3 (30.0)	1 (16.7)	0.21
3	8 (34.8)	4 (40.0)	3 (50.0)	0.79
4	1 (4.3)	3 (30.0)	2 (33.3)	0.071
Preoperative inotropic support	2 (8.7)	3 (30.0)	2 (33.3)	0.19
Etiology
Ischemic	23 (100)	8 (80.0)	1 (16.7)	<0.001
Non-ischemic	0	2 (20.0)	5 (83.3)	<0.001
Echocardiographic data
MR grade	2.6 ± 0.6	3.8 ± 0.4^a	3.7 ± 0.5^a	<0.01
LVEDD (mm)	66.3 ± 6.4	70.4 ± 7.4	66.2 ± 3.6	0.24
LVESD (mm)	48.7 ± 12.0	61.2 ± 9.7^a	57.3 ± 4.2	<0.01
LVEF (%)	40.4 ± 11.7	31.9 ± 5.4^a	29.7 ± 7.4^a	0.026

Data are mean ± standard deviation, or n (%). MR: Mitral regurgitation; RMAP: Restrictive mitral annuloplasty; PMR: Papillary muscle relocation; LVEDD: Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVESD: Left ventricular end-systolic diameter; LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction.
^aP < 0.05 compared with RMAP (Tukey–Kramer test).

ISSN: 1749-8090