‘CLAS’ score: an objective tool to standardize and predict mitral valve repairability
- 21 Downloads
Carpentier’s classification has been used to classify both stenotic and regurgitant lesions. However, given the extreme variability of lesions, a universal nomenclature suggestive of the complexity and the prognosis of the repair procedure for the entire spectrum of the mitral valve disease still remains elusive. We present the predictors of mitral valve repairability with the help of a four-level-based ‘CLAS’ scoring system.
A total of 394 patients undergoing mitral valve procedure were prospectively studied. The valvular apparatus was divided into four sub-units, namely Commissures (C), Leaflet (L), Annulus (A), and Subvalvular apparatus (S), and the components were scored individually and the summation scores were calculated. Based on our results, three CLAS groups were formulated.
A total of 376 (n = 394) patients underwent successful MVRep (95.43%; on-table failure in 18 patients). A total of 276 were rheumatic, 51 degenerative, 28 congenital, and 16 had infective endocarditis. Thirty-day mortality was 14 (3.72%) while delayed re-intervention rate was 8 (2.12%). The mean follow-up period was 30 months. One hundred percent patients with a CLAS score ≤ 8 had a successful repair as compared to 93.33 and 69.69%, respectively, for patients with scores between 9 and 12 and > 12, respectively. The cardio pulmonary bypass time, aortic-cross-clamp time, and ICU stay also showed a significant correlation with the patient’s ‘CLAS’ groups.
The CLAS score is highly predictive of a successful repair. We thus propose that, in the patients with a score of ≤ 8, repair should always be attempted irrespective of the pathology. The patients expected to be scored > 8 should be referred to a repair reference center.
KeywordsMitral valve repair Rheumatic heart disease Mitral regurgitation
Compliance with ethical standards
The research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee. A written informed consent for participation was obtained, follow-up data was collected as a part of the valvular repair registry of the institute and was 96% complete.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Study does not involve the use of any animal.
And in case of patients, all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent has been taken from patients and none have been forced to be a part of study.
- 2.Choudhary SK, Talwar S, Dubey B, Chopra A, Saxena A, Kumar AS. Mitral valve repair in a predominantly rheumatic population: long-term results. Tex Heart Inst J. 2001;28:8–15.Google Scholar
- 3.Carpentier A. Cardiac valve surgery—the “French correction”. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1983;86:323–37.Google Scholar
- 10.Dillon J, Yakub MA, Kong PK, Ramli MF, Jaffar N, Gaffar IF. Comparative long-term results of mitral valve repair in adults with chronic rheumatic disease and degenerative disease: Is repair for “burnt-out” rheumatic disease still inferior to repair for degenerative disease in the current era? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:771–9.Google Scholar
- 11.Acar C, de Ibarra JS, Lansac E. Anterior leaflet augmentation with autologous pericardium for mitral repair in rheumatic valve insufficiency. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13:741–6.Google Scholar
- 12.Chotivatanapong T, Lerdsomboon P, Sungkahapong V. Rheumatic mitral valve repair: experience of 221 cases from Central Chest Institute of Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95:S51–7.Google Scholar