Dataset Information

Is Mitral Valve Repair Superior to Mitral Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients? Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Because of demographic changes, a growing number of elderly patients present with mitral valve (MV) disease. Although mitral valve repair (MV-repair) is the "gold standard" treatment for MV disease, in elderly patients, there is controversy about whether MV-repair is superior to mitral valve replacement. We reviewed results after MV surgery in elderly patients treated over the past 20 years.

Methods and results

Our in-hospital database was explored for patients who underwent MV surgery between 1994 and 2015. Survival data, obtained from the National Health Service central register, were complete for all patients. Of 1776 patients with MV disease, 341 were aged ?75 years. Patients with repeat cardiac surgery, endocarditis, and concomitant aortic valve replacement were excluded. This yielded 221 MV-repair and 120 mitral valve replacement patients. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 135 patients (39.6%) and tricuspid valve surgery in 50 patients (14.7%). Thirty-day mortality was 5.4% (MV-repair) versus 9.2% (mitral valve replacement, P=0.26). Overall 1- and 5-year survival was 90.7%, 74.2% versus 81.3%, 61.0% (P<0.01). Median survival after MV-repair was 7.8 years, close to 8.5 years (95% CI: 8.2-9.4) in the age-matched UK population (ratio 0.9). Rate of re-operation for MV-dysfunction was 2.3% versus 2.5% (mitral valve replacement, P=1.0). After propensity matching, patients after MV-repair still had improved survival at 1, 2, and 5 years (93.4%, 91.6%, 76.9% versus 77.2%, 75.2%, 58.7%, P=0.03).

Conclusions

Excellent outcomes can be achieved after MV surgery in elderly patients. Long-term survival is superior after MV-repair and the re-operation rate is low. MV-repair should be the preferred surgical approach in elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Silaschi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5015286 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Mitral Valve Repair Superior to Mitral Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients? Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

Silaschi Miriam M Chaubey Sanjay S Aldalati Omar O Khan Habib H Uzzaman Mohammed Mohsin MM Singh Mrinal M Baghai Max M Deshpande Ranjit R Wendler Olaf O

Journal of the American Heart Association 20160728 8

<h4>Background</h4>Because of demographic changes, a growing number of elderly patients present with mitral valve (MV) disease. Although mitral valve repair (MV-repair) is the "gold standard" treatment for MV disease, in elderly patients, there is controversy about whether MV-repair is superior to mitral valve replacement. We reviewed results after MV surgery in elderly patients treated over the past 20 years.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Our in-hospital database was explored for patients who unde ...[more]

PMID: 27468927

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Project description:ObjectiveMitral valve repair is superior to replacement for degenerative disease, but long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior leaflet repair remain poorly defined. We propensity matched anterior and posterior repairs to compare long-term outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing first-time degenerative mitral repair between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural residual mitral regurgitation and reoperation. From 1025 patients, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, yielding 309 anterior (isolated anterior = 85, bileaflet = 224) and 309 isolated posterior repairs.ResultsAge was 58 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 57% ± 10%, and matched groups were well balanced. Anterior repairs had longer bypass (122 ± 53 vs 109 ± 43 minutes, P = .001) and crossclamp (94 ± 44 vs 85 ± 62 minutes, P = .033) times. Mean residual mitral regurgitation grade was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.65) for anterior repair and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) for posterior repair (P = .31). Overall, 92% (569/618) of matched patients had no residual mitral regurgitation, with no differences in mitral regurgitation grade between groups (P = .77). Survival did not differ between anterior (10 years: 72% ± 7%; 15 years: 63% ± 7%) and posterior (10 years: 74% ± 7%; 15 years: 60% ± 8%) groups (log-rank P = .93). Linearized incidence of reoperation was 0.62% per patient-year, including 0.74% for anterior and 0.48% for posterior repairs. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 15 years was 7.5% after anterior repair and 4.9% after posterior repair (Gray's test P = .26).ConclusionsNo long-term survival or reoperation difference was found between posterior and anterior repair. On the basis of these findings, surgeons at centers of excellence should aim for repair of both anterior and posterior leaflet pathology with the same decision-making threshold over valve replacement for degenerative mitral disease.

Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) occurs frequently in patients with mitral valve disease. Results of cryoablation concomitant with either minimally invasive video-assisted [minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)] or with robotic-assisted (RMV) mitral valve surgery have previously been separately reported. However, there are up-to-date no studies comparing the two procedures in terms of safety, efficacy, and mid-term follow-up.MethodsBetween January 2017 and March 2022, 294 patients underwent MIMVS, and 187 patients underwent RMV at our institution. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 22 preoperative variables, the study included 104 patients. Group 1 (MIMVS) included 52 patients operated on between 2017-2022 using a minimally invasive video-assisted right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Group 2 (RMV) included 52 patients operated on between 2019-2021 using a robotic-assisted approach. Early and mid-term outcomes were assessed, including maintenance of sinus rhythm. Follow-up was 100% complete at a median follow-up of 2 years.ResultsFor the entire propensity matched cohort, the median EuroSCORE II was 3.14 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.93-4.99], the median age was 68 (IQR, 61-74) years, and two thirds of the patients were male. Most (72.1%) underwent mitral valve surgery, and 26.9% had an additional tricuspid procedure. Only four patients underwent mitral valve replacement (3.8%). The majority (87.5%) received a left-sided atrial Maze and 12.5% a bi-atrial Maze. The left atrial appendage was occluded in 72.1% cases. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two propensity matched groups in baseline demographics or intra-operative characteristics. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the post-operative short and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. There were no in-hospital or 30-day deaths. At the mid-term survival was similar between groups, log-rank test P=0.056. Maintenance of sinus rhythm at follow-up was 76%.ConclusionsMitral or double valve repair with concomitant cryoablation can be safely performed with either a MIMVS or RMV approach. Both methods demonstrated outstanding early and mid-term outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundIschemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited.MethodsWe randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank.ResultsAt 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P=0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P=0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months.ConclusionsWe observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).

Dataset Information

Is Mitral Valve Repair Superior to Mitral Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients? Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Is Mitral Valve Repair Superior to Mitral Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients? Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets