Dataset Information

Mitral valve re-repair vs replacement following failed initial repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The optimal treatment strategy following a failed mitral valve repair remains unclear. This study aims to compare and analyse available studies which report the clinical outcomes post mitral valve re-repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR) after a prior mitral valve repair. METHODS:Based on PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed utilising PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases to identify retrospective cohort studies that reported outcomes of MVr and MVR after a prior mitral valve repair. Data regarding operative mortality, clinical outcomes and complications were extracted, synthesized and meta-analysed where appropriate. RESULTS:Eight studies with a total cohort of 1632 patients were used. After analysis, no significant differences in the short term and long-term operative mortality, incidence of stroke, congestive heart failure, Grade 1 and Grade 2 mitral regurgitation, requirement of 3rd mitral valve operation and reoperation due bleeding were found between the two groups. However, a slightly higher incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.11, CI: 0.02 to 0.17, I2 =?0%, p =?0.02) was observed in the MVR group, as compared to the MVr group. CONCLUSION:MVr appears to be a viable alternative to MVR for mitral valve reoperation, given that they are associated with similar post-operative outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Veerappan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7542900 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mitral valve re-repair vs replacement following failed initial repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Veerappan Muthu M Cheekoty Prashasth P Sazzad Faizus F Kofidis Theo T

Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 20201007 1

<h4>Background</h4>The optimal treatment strategy following a failed mitral valve repair remains unclear. This study aims to compare and analyse available studies which report the clinical outcomes post mitral valve re-repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR) after a prior mitral valve repair.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed utilising PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases to identify retrospective cohort studies that reported outcomes of MVr and MVR after a ...[more]

PMID: 33028386

Similar Datasets

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.).

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical outcome of mitral valve repair (MVP) is considerably more favorable than that of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with degenerative mitral disease. However, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is still the predominant cause of mitral valve surgery in developing countries and the advantages of MVP in RHD have still not been definitely proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was thus to evaluate the suitability of MVP in patients with RHD. Considering the difference between mechanical and biological valves, we distinguished them from each other and compared them with MVP individually.MethodsA comparison of clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients with RHD was performed based on clinical trial data. Relevant articles published from January 1, 1990 until March 1, 2020 were identified in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI). Studies that lacked direct comparisons between MVP and MVR were excluded.ResultsA total of 16 studies with 8659 patients were included in the analysis. The MVP group displayed lower early and long-term mortality, and fewer valve-related events and major adverse events. However, this patient group required more reoperations compared with the MVR group. Similar results were observed after distinguishing between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves to compare MVP with MVR (mech-valves), but no statistically significant difference was identified in the reoperation rate between MVP and MVR (bio-valves). MVP was further associated with increased risk of mitral reoperation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery but without any improved early and long-term survival.ConclusionsMVP and MVR are beneficial for patients with RHD. For skilled surgeons, MVP can be performed for some suitable patients with RHD and is preferred for elderly patients or patients with contraindications of anticoagulation. However, MVR is more appropriate when concomitant AVR is needed.

Dataset Information

Mitral valve re-repair vs replacement following failed initial repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Mitral valve re-repair vs replacement following failed initial repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets