4.7 Article

Characteristics and management of cleft mitral valve

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 1988-1993

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.07.019

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES We sought to highlight the clinical, morphologic, and pathogenetic features in patients with a cleft mitral valve (MV). BACKGROUND Few studies have addressed the morphologic features of cleft MV and the outcome of these patients. The pathogenetic features, including the developmental relation to an atrioventricular (AV) septal defect, remain unclear. METHODS We reviewed the patients with cleft MV that were diagnosed by echocardiography since 1980. Patients with an AV canal, ventriculo-arterial discordance, and hypoplastic ventricles were excluded. RESULTS Twenty-two patients were identified at a median age of 0.5 years (range 0 to 10.6). In three patients, no chordal attachments of the deft to the ventricular septum were seen. Ten patients had significant mitral regurgitation (MR), and three had subaortic obstruction by the cleft. Associated cardiac lesions and extracardiac features were present in 13 and 10 patients, respectively. During the median follow-up period of 1.5 years (range 0 to 11.8), two patients died of extracardiac causes, and one neonate died of severe subaortic obstruction. Surgical repair was performed in 10 patients at a median age of 5.2 years (range 1.3 to 10.6). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors for MV surgery. One patient was re-operated for mitral stenosis associated with aortic valve stenosis. Follow-up echocardiography demonstrated moderate MR in two unoperated patients and moderate MV stenosis in two operated patients. CONCLUSIONS A cleft of the MV comprises a wide spectrum. Important morphologic differences exist with an AV septal defect, although the two lesions may be pathogenetically related. Surgical repair always seems possible. Long-term echocardiographic follow-up is warranted. (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available