Dataset Information

Rheumatic mitral valve repair or replacement in the valve-in-valve era.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

For degenerative mitral disease, repair is superior to replacement; however, the best operative strategy for rheumatic mitral disease remains unclear. We evaluated the association between decision-making in choosing repair versus replacement and outcomes across 2 decades of rheumatic mitral surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing isolated, first-time rheumatic mitral surgery were identified. Era 1 (1997-2008) and Era 2 (2009-2018) were distinguished by intraoperative assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification (Era 2) in deciding between mitral repair versus replacement. Primary outcome was a composite of death, reoperation, and severe valve dysfunction.

Results

Among 180 patients, age was 59 ± 14 years, and ejection fraction was 58% ± 10%. A higher proportion in Era 1 (n = 56) compared with Era 2 (n = 124) had preoperative atrial fibrillation (68% vs 46%; P = .006); the groups were otherwise similar. Primary indication was mitral stenosis in 69% (124 out of 180; pure = 35, mixed = 89) and did not differ by era (P = .67). During Era 1, 70% (39 out of 56) underwent repair, compared with 33% (41 out of 124) during Era 2 (P < .001). Freedom from death, reoperation, or severe valve dysfunction at 5 years was higher in Era 2 (72% ± 9%) than Era 1 (54% ± 13%; P = .04). Five-year survival was higher in Era 2 than Era 1, but did not differ between repair versus replacement. Five-year cumulative incidence of reoperation with death as a competing risk did not differ by era, but was higher after repair than replacement.

Conclusions

Careful assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification to determine mitral repair or replacement was associated with improved outcomes. This decision-making strategy may alter the threshold for rheumatic mitral replacement in the current valve-in-valve era.

SUBMITTER: Brescia AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7655552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.