Bileaflet Mitral Valve Prolapse and Risk of Ventricular Dysrhythmias and Death. (12th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: NORDHUES, BENJAMIN D.; SIONTIS, KONSTANTINOS C.; SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER G.; NKOMO, VUYISILE T.; ACKERMAN, MICHAEL J.; ASIRVATHAM, SAMUEL J.; NOSEWORTHY, PETER A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 27:Number 4(2016)
• Page Start: 463
• Page End: 468
• Publication Date: 2016-02-12
• Subjects: bileaflet mitral valve prolapse -- implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator -- mitral valve prolapse -- sudden cardiac death -- ventricular fibrillation -- ventricular tachycardia; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.12914
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Dysrhythmias and Death in BiMVP: Introduction: Bileaflet mitral valve prolapse (BiMVP) is common among survivors of otherwise unexplained sudden cardiac death, but prognostic implications of BiMVP are unknown. This study evaluated whether patients with BiMVP are at higher risk for ventricular dysrhythmias, ICD placement, or death compared to controls with either single‐leaflet mitral valve prolapse (SiMVP) or no mitral valve prolapse (MVP). Methods and Results: This retrospective, matched cohort study included 18, 786 patients who underwent echocardiography at Mayo Clinic between June 1990 and September 2014. The study included three cohorts: BiMVP, SiMVP, and controls without MVP. We assessed rates of ventricular dysrhythmias, ICD placement, and all‐cause mortality between groups. BiMVP was associated with higher rates of ventricular tachycardia compared to SiMVP and controls (adjusted HR 1.48 [1.14–1.92], P = 0.003 and 1.40 [1.04–1.88], P = 0.026, respectively); however, there were no statistically significant differences in rates of ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest or ICD placement between groups. BiMVP was associated with a lower rate of all‐cause mortality compared to SiMVP and controls (adjusted HR 0.86 [0.79–0.94], P = 0.0008, and 0.55 [0.50–0.60], P < 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: Although BiMVP is associated with ventricular tachycardia, it is not associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation or ICD implantation and is, paradoxically, associated with a better survival compared to SiMVP or matched controls. The findings suggest that, despite its association with ventricular tachycardia, BiMVP in the absence of other risk factors does not seem to portend a poor prognosis at the population level.