Mitral Annular Disjunction of Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation: Three-Dimensional Evaluation and Implications for Mitral Repair

Background: The dynamic consequences of mitral annular disjunction (MAD) on the mitral apparatus and the left ventricle remain unclear and are crucial in the context of mitral surgery. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess mitral valvular, annular, and ventricular dynamics in mitral valve prolapse (MVP) stratified by presence of MAD.

Methods: In 61 patients (mean age, 62 ± 11 years; 25% women) with MVP and severe mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral surgery between 2009 and 2016, valvular and annular dimensions and dynamics by two-dimensional transthoracic and three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography and left ventricular dimensions and dynamics were analyzed stratified by presence of MAD before and after surgery.

Results: MAD (mean, 8 ± 3 mm) was diagnosed in 27 patients (44%; with a mean effective regurgitant orifice area of 0.55 ± 0.20 cm² and similar to patients without MAD), more frequently in bileaflet prolapse (52% vs 18% in patients without MAD, P = .004), consistently involving P2 (P = .005). Patients with MAD displayed larger diastolic annular areas (mean, 1,646 ± 410 vs 1,380 ± 348 mm²), circumferences (mean, 150 ± 19 vs 137 ± 16 mm), and intercommissural diameters (mean, 48 ± 7 vs 43 ± 6 mm) compared with those without MAD (P ≤ .008 for all). Dynamically, mid- and late systolic excess intercommissural diameter, annular area, and circumference enlargement were associated with MAD (P ≤ .01 for all). MAD was also associated with dynamically annular slippage, larger prolapse volume and height (P ≤ .007), and larger leaflet area (mean, 2,053 ± 620 vs 1,692 ± 488 mm², P = .01). Although patients with MAD compared with those without MAD showed similar ejection fractions (mean, 65 ± 5% vs 62 ± 8%, respectively, P = .10), systolic basal posterior thickness was increased in patients with MAD (mean, 19 ± 2 vs 15 ± 2 mm, P < .001), with higher systolic thickening of the basal posterior wall (mean, 74 ± 27% vs 50 ± 28%) and higher ratio of basal wall thickness to diameter (P ≤ .01 for both). However, after mitral repair, MAD disappeared, and LV diameter, wall thickness, and wall thickening showed no difference between patients with MAD and those without MAD (P ≥ .10 for all).

Conclusions: MAD in patients with MVP involves a predominant phenotype of bileaflet MVP and causes profound annular dynamic alterations with considerable expansion and excess annular enlargement in systole, potentially affecting leaflet coaptation. MAD myocardial and annular slippage simulates vigorous left ventricular function without true benefit after surgical annular suture. Thus, although MAD does not hinder the feasibility and quality of valve repair, it requires careful suture of ring to ventricular myocardium, lest it persist postoperatively.