Ischemic mitral regurgitation and non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: long-term prognosis

Clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation: a review

Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a frequent complication after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with a worse prognosis. The pathophysiological mechanisms of IMR are not fully understood, but it is known to be a complex process in which ventricular remodelling is the main causal factor. The various imaging techniques in cardiology and echocardiography fundamentally have contributed significantly to clarify the mechanisms that cause and progressively aggravate IMR. At present, different therapeutic options, the most important of which are cardio-surgical, address this problem. Nowadays the improvement in cardiac surgery and transcatheter therapies, have shown a therapeutic advance in IMR management. IMR is a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with heart failure and depressed left ventricular (LV) systolic function. However, it remains controversial whether mitral regurgitation (MR) in these patients is a consequence of dilation and dysfunction of the LV, or whether it contributes to worsening the prognosis of the ventricular dysfunction. Given that echocardiography has a fundamental reference role in the identification, graduation of severity and evaluation of the therapeutics used in the treatment of MR, we are going to focus on it over the rest of the imaging techniques. In contrast to primary MR the benefits of mitral surgery in patients with secondary MR are uncertain. Therefore, we will comment fundamentally on the role of mitral surgery in patients with IMR, with an update of the different surgical interventions available, without forgetting to mention the other therapeutic options currently available.

Mild heart failure is a mortality marker after a non-ST-segment acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The Killip classification categorizes heart failure (HF) in acute myocardial infarction, and has a prognostic value. Although non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is increasing steadily, little information is available about the prognostic value of low Killip class in this scenario. Our aim was to assess the prognostic value of mild HF in NSTEMI.

METHODS

835 patients with NSTEMI between 2005 and 2007 were prospectively recruited. Patients in Killip-1 (K1=684) or Killip-2 class (K2=113) were selected (38, with K>2, excluded). Clinical, angiographic, treatment strategies, and 30-day all-cause mortality, together with other cardiovascular outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

K2 patients were mostly women (K1 27.9% vs K2 48.0%, p<0.001) and older (K1 66.6years vs K2 73.8years, p<0.001) with a higher frequency of diabetes mellitus (p<0.001) and hypertension (p<0.001). Smoking was less frequent in the K2-group (p=0.003). A previous infarction/revascularization history was similar in both groups. The infarction size, assessed by Troponin I/Creatin kinase, did not differ between groups (p=0.378 and p=0.855). Multivessel coronary disease and revascularization procedures were less common in group K2 (p=0.015 and p=0.005 vs group K1, respectively). Patients in K2 had a worse prognosis in terms of maximum Killip class, death and major adverse cardiovascular events (p<0.001). After multivariate analysis, mild HF at presentation was an independent risk factor for mortality (OR=6.50; IC 95%: 2.48-16.95; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mild HF at presentation in NSTEMI is linked to a poor prognosis, with increased short-term mortality. Thus, a more aggressive approach including early cardiac catheterization and revascularization should be considered.