Impact of Residual Mitral Regurgitation on Right Ventricular Systolic Function After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Evidence for Populational Differences

Role of the mitral valve in left ventricular assist device pathophysiology

Functional mitral regurgitation (MR) in the setting of heart failure results from progressive dilatation of the left ventricle (LV) and mitral annulus. This leads to leaflet tethering with posterior displacement. Contrary to common assumptions, MR often does not resolve with LVAD decompression of the LV alone. The negative impact of significant (moderate-severe) mitral regurgitation in the LVAD setting is becoming better recognized in terms of its harmful effect on right heart function, pulmonary vascular resistance and hospital readmissions. However, controversies remain regarding the threshold for intervention and management. At present, there are no consensus indications for the repair of significant mitral regurgitation at the time of LVAD implantation due to the conflicting data regarding potential adverse effects of MR on clinical outcomes. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of MR pathophysiology in patients supported with LVAD and potential future management strategies.

Fate of preoperative moderate mitral regurgitation following left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVE

We examined for improvements in preoperative moderate mitral regurgitation following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) implantation.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2020, 190 patients with moderate MR underwent cfVLAD implant without concomitant mitral valve (MV) surgery. Cardiac dimensions and contractility, as well as valve function, were assessed with an echocardiogram (echo) pre-cfLVAD, and at approximately 1 month post-cfLVAD. Outcomes were determined by retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

Median echo follow-up was 0.94 (0.53, 1.38) months. Residual significant moderate or greater MR was present in 30/190 (15.8%) on follow-up. Patients with significant residual MR had larger preoperative left ventricular internal diameters in diastole (74.4 ± 8.7 vs. 71.1.0 ± 9.1 mm, p = .034). Significant residual MR was associated with higher preoperative mean pulmonary artery pressures (OR = 1.055, p = .035) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures (OR = 1.060, p = .034). Significant residual MR on echo was not associated with any survival difference (p = .325). The 1, 5, and 10 year survival were 89.9%, 55.2%, and 34.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with moderate MR undergoing LVAD implantation, the likelihood of significant residual MR is low and mitral intervention in this population is not recommended. However, select patients with larger preoperative left heart dimensions and pulmonary vascular pressures may be at risk for persistent residual MR.