The Carpentier-Edwards Classic™ and Physio™ Mitral Annuloplasty Rings: A Randomized Trial

Authors

  • Ghada M. M. Shahin
  • Geert J. M. G. van der Heijden
  • Michiel L. Bots
  • Maarten-Jan Cramer
  • Wybren Jaarsma
  • José C. A. Gadellaa
  • Aart Brutel de la Rivière
  • Henry A. van Swieten

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.419

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcomes for the semi-flexible Carpentier-Edwards Physio and the rigid Classic mitral annuloplasty ring.

Methods: Ninety-six patients were randomized for either a Classic (n = 53) or a Physio (n = 43) ring from October 1995 through July 1997. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years (range .1-6.6). We included standard patient characteristics at baseline and during follow-up. Analyses were adjusted for age and gender, and for factors that differed across groups at baseline. In 2002, echocardiography was performed in 74% of the survivors.

Results: We found a 16% difference in mortality: 14% in the Physio group (n = 6) and 30% in the Classic group (n = 16) (adjusted P = .41). Life table analysis shows that the absolute risk of death after 30 months is lower in the Physio group. Intra-operative repair failure occurred in 3 patients (6%) of the Classic group, and in 4 (9%) of the Physio group, resulting in mitral valve replacement. Late failure occurred in 1 patient (2%) in the Classic group, and in 4 (9%) in the Physio group. At follow-up, left ventricular function did not differ across groups (ejection fraction 45% and 48% (adjusted P = .65)). The combined NYHA class III-IV had improved for the Classic group in 42% and for the Physio group in 34%.

Conclusion: Although the 16% difference in mortality did not reach statistical significance, it is considered clinically important. No differences in morbidity, valve function, and left ventricular function were found. Further research to explain the difference in mortality is required.

References

Helmcke F, Nanda NC, Hsiung MC, et al. 1987. Color doppler assessment of mitral regurgitation with orthogonal planes. Circulation 75:175-83.nBorghetti V, Campana M, Scotti C, et al. 2000. Biologic versus prosthetic ring in mitral-valve repair: enhancement of mitral annulus dynamics and left-ventricular function with pericardial annuloplasty at long term. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 17:431-9.nCarpentier A. 1969. La valvuloplastie reconstitutive. Une nouvelle technique de valvuloplastie mitrale. Presse Med 77:251-3.nCarpentier A. 1983. Cardiac valve surgery - the "French" correction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 86:323-37.nCarpentier AF, Lessana A, Relland JYM, et al. 1995. The "Physio-Ring": an advanced concept in mitral valve annuloplasty. Ann Thorac Surg 60:1177-86.nCosgrove DM, Arcidi JM, Rodriguez L, Stewart WJ, Powell K, Thomas JD. 1995. Initial experience with the Cosgrove-Edwards annuloplasty system. Ann Thorac Surg 60:499-504.nDavid TE, Komeda M, Pollick C, Burns RJ. 1989. Mitral valve annuloplasty: the effect of the type on left ventricular function. Ann Thorac Surg 47:524-8.nDavid TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. 1995. Left ventricular function after mitral valve surgery. J Heart Valve Dis 4(Suppl 2):175-80.nDeloche A, Jebara VA, Relland JY, et al. 1990. Valve repair with Carpentier techniques. The second decade. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 99:990-1002.nGillinov AM, Cosgrove DM. 2002. Mitral valve repair for degenerative disease. J Heart Valve Dis 11(Suppl 1):15-20.nYamaura Y, Yoshikawa J, Yoshida K, Hozumi T, Akasaka T, Okada Y. 1995. Three-dimensional analysis of configuration and dynamics in patients with an annuloplasty ring by multiplane transesophageal echocardiography: comparison between flexible and rigid annuloplasty rings. J Heart Valve Dis 4:619-22.nEnriquez-Sarano M, Miller FA Jr, Hayes SN, Bailey KR, Tajik AJ, Seward JB. 1995. Effective mitral regurgitant orifice area: clinical use and itfalls of the proximal isovelocity surface area method. J Am Coll Cardiol 25:703-9.nGreen GR, Dagum P, Glasson JR, et al. 1998. Semirigid or flexible mitral annuloplasty rings do not affect global or basal regional left ventricular systolic function. Circulation 98(Suppl 19):II 128-35.nKreindel MS, Schiavone WA, Lever HM, Cosgrove D. 1986. Systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve after carpentier ring valvuloplasty for mitral valve prolapse. Am J Cardiol 57:408-12.nDagum P, Green GR, Glasson JR, et al. 1999. Potential mechanism of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction after mitral ring annuloplasty. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:472-80.nDall'Agata A, Taams MA, Fioretti PM., Roelandt JRTC, van Herwerden LA. 1998. Cosgrove-Edwards mitral ring dynamics measured with transesophageal three-dimensional echocardiography. Ann Thorac Surg 65:485-90.nOtto CM. 2000. Valvular stenosis: diagnosis, quantitation and clinical approach. In: Otto CM, ed. Textbook of Clinical Echocardiography, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, pp. 229-64.nVan Rijk-Zwikker GL, Schipperheyn JJ, Huysmans HA, Bruschke AV. 1989. Influence of mitral valve prosthesis or rigid mitral ring on left ventricular pump function. A study on exposed and isolated blood-perfused porcine hearts. Circulation 80(3 Pt 1):I-1-I-7.nVan Rijk-Zwikker GL, Mast F, Schipperheyn JJ, Huysmans HA, Bruschke AVG. 1990. Comparison of rigid and flexible rings for annuloplasty of the porcine mitral valve. Circulation 82(Suppl IV):58-64.nVan Rijk-Zwikker GL, Delemarre BJ, Huysmans HA. 1994. Mitral valve anatomy and morphology: relevance to mitral valve replacement and valve reconstruction. J Card Surg 9(Suppl):255-61.n

Published

2006-01-06

How to Cite

Shahin, G. M. M., Heijden, G. J. M. G. van der, Bots, M. L., Cramer, M.-J., Jaarsma, W., Gadellaa, J. C. A., Rivière, A. B. de la, & Swieten, H. A. van. (2006). The Carpentier-Edwards Classic™ and Physio™ Mitral Annuloplasty Rings: A Randomized Trial. The Heart Surgery Forum, 8(5), E389-E395. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.419

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)