Surgical left ventricular remodeling leads to better long-term survival and exercise tolerance than coronary artery bypass grafting alone in patients with moderate ischemic cardiomyopathy

Left ventricular reconstruction: update to left ventricular aneurysm/reshaping techniques

The increase in left ventricular (LV) volume after a myocardial infarction (MI) is a component of the remodelling process and is associated with a poor clinical outcome. Hence, the current management strategy for ischaemic LV dysfunction has been aimed at reversing the remodelling process. Surgical LV reconstruction (LVR) has been introduced as an optional therapeutic strategy aimed at reducing LV volumes through the exclusion of the scar tissue, thereby restoring the physiological volume and shape and improving LV function and clinical status. Until recently, several studies have shown that surgical LVR is effective and relatively safe, with a favourable 5-year outcome. However, in spite of the large amount of reports drawn on various data sets, the additional benefit of LVR to CABG remains debated. We briefly discuss the rationale for surgically reversing LV remodelling through LVR, and, more extensively, the technique and the indications to the best of our knowledge.

Influence of baseline left ventricular function on the clinical outcome of surgical ventricular reconstruction in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy

AIMS

The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial demonstrated no overall benefit when surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) was added to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. The present analysis was to determine whether, based on baseline left ventricular (LV) function parameters, any subgroups could be identified that benefited from SVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among the 1000 patients enrolled, Core Lab measures of baseline LV function with adequate quality were obtained in 710 patients using echocardiography, in 352 using cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and in 344 using radionuclide imaging. The relationship between LV end-systolic volume index (ESVI), end-diastolic volume index, ejection fraction (EF), regional wall motion abnormalities, and outcome were first assessed only by echocardiographic measures, and then by 13 algorithms using a different hierarchy of imaging modalities and their quality. The median ESVI and EF were 78.0 (range: 22.8-283.8) mL/m2 and 28.0%, respectively. Hazard ratios comparing the randomized arms by subgroups of LVESVI and LVEF measured by echocardiography found that patients with smaller ventricles (LVESVI <60 mL/m2) and better LVEF (≥33%) may have benefitted by SVR, while those with larger ventricles (LVESVI >90 mL/m(2)) and lower LVEF (≤25%) did worse with SVR. Algorithms using all three imaging modalities found a weaker relationship between LV global function and the effects of SVR. The extent of regional wall motion abnormality did not influence the effects of SVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Subgroup analyses of the STICH trial suggest that patients with less dilated LV and better LVEF may benefit from SVR, while those with larger LV and poorer LVEF may do worse. Clinical Trial Registration #: NCT00023595.