Re-repair vs. Replacement for Failed Mitral Valve Repair: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of re-repair with those of mitral valve replacement (MVR) for failed initial mitral valve repair (MVr).Methods
We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared mitral valve re-repair with MVR for the treatment of failed initial MVr. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and subjected to a meta-analysis. Odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR), ratio difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse-variance methods for mode of repair failure, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up outcomes.Results
Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 938 patients, and mean/median follow-up ranged from 1.8 to 8.9 years. Pooled incidence of technical failure was 41% (RD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.5; P = 0.00; I2 = 86%; 6 studies, 846 patients). Pooled mitral valve re-repair rate was 36% (RD: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.26-0.46; P = 0; I2 = 91%; 8 studies, 938 patients). Pooled data showed significantly lower perioperative mortality (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 07 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; P = 0.008; 6 studies, 824 patients) and significantly lower long-term mortality (HR:0.42; 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; P = 0; 7 studies, 903 patients) in the re-repair group compared with MVR.Conclusions
Mitral valve re-repair was associated with better immediate and sustained outcomes for failed MVr and should be recommended if technically feasible.
SUBMITTER: Zhong Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9237322 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7542900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: High morbidity and mortality caused by rheumatic heart disease (RHD) are global burdens, especially in low-income and developing countries. Whether mitral valve repair (MVP) benefits RHD patients remains controversial. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of MVP and mitral valve replacement (MVR) in RHD patients. Methods and Results: A systematic literature search was conducted in major databases, including Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, until 17 December 2020. Studies comparing MVP and MVR in RHD patients were retained. Outcomes included early mortality, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, postoperative infective endocarditis, thromboembolic events, hemorrhagic events, and freedom from valve-related adverse events. Eleven studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Of a total of 5,654 patients, 1,951 underwent MVP, and 3,703 underwent MVR. Patients who undergo MVP can benefit from a higher long-term survival rate (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95; P = 0.020; I 2 = 44%), a lower risk of early mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01; P = 0.060; I 2 = 42%), and the composite outcomes of valve-related adverse events (HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = 0.030; I 2 = 25%). However, a higher risk of reoperation was observed in the MVP group (HR 2.60; 95% CI, 1.89-3.57; P<0.001; I 2 = 4%). Patients who underwent concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the two groups had comparable long-term survival rates, although the trend still favored MVP. Conclusions: For RHD patients, MVP can reduce early mortality, and improve long-term survival and freedom from valve-related adverse events. However, MVP was associated with a higher risk of reoperation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=228307.
| S-EPMC8193043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMitral regurgitation (MR) is a rather common valvular heart disease. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes, and complications of mitral valve (MV) replacement with surgical MV repair of non-ischemic MR (NIMR) METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until October, 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included patients with MR and reported early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality. For each study, data on all-cause mortality and incidence of reoperation and operative complications in both groups were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018089608.ResultsThe literature search yielded 4834 studies, of which 20 studies, including a total of 21,898 patients with NIMR, were included. The pooled analysis showed that lower age, less female inclusion and incident of hypertension, significantly higher rates of diabetes and atrial fibrillation in the MV replacement group than MV repair group. No significant differences in the rates of pre-operative left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure were observed between groups. The number of patients in the MV repair group was lower than in the MV replacement group. We found that there were significantly increased risks of mortality associated with replacement of MR. Moreover, the rate of re-operation and post-operative MR in the MV repair group was lower than in the MV replacement group.ConclusionsIn patients with NIMR, MV repair achieves higher survival and leads to fewer complications than surgical MV replacement. In light of these results, we suggest that MV repair surgery should be a priority for NIMR patients.
| S-EPMC8207733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review outlines the first trial experience with transcatheter therapy for mitral regurgitation (MR), developed from the EVEREST II MitraClip trial in a trial population comprised predominantly of patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR). Subsequent experience with MitraClip and several other devices has been mostly in functional MR patients. At the same time, there has been ongoing experience with MitraClip in DMR, and a variety of other devices have been developed for catheter-based treatment of MR. Annuloplasty devices have been indicated for DMR, and the potential for transcatheter annuloplasty to be used, in conjunction with other catheter techniques, such as chordal replacement, as it is in standard mitral repair, is developing. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement will clearly have some role for MR of both functional and degenerative etiologies, when repair is not feasible or fails. This review will discuss the evidence base and future development of these mitral repair and replacement approaches for DMR.
| S-EPMC6288224 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesAlthough clinical experience with transcatheter mitral valve interventions is rapidly increasing, there is still a lack of evidence regarding surgical treatment options for the management of recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR). This study provides guidance for a minimally invasive surgical approach following failed transcatheter mitral valve repair, which is based on the underlying mitral valve (MV) pathology and the type of intervention.MethodsA total of 46 patients who underwent minimally invasive MV surgery due to recurrent or residual MR after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair or direct interventional annuloplasty between October 2014 and March 2021 were included.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 78 [interquartile range, 71-82] years and the EuroSCORE II was 4.41 [interquartile range, 2.66-6.55]. At the index procedure, edge-to-edge repair had been performed in 45 (97.8%) patients and direct annuloplasty in 1 patient. All patients with functional MR at the index procedure (n = 36) underwent MV replacement. Of the patients with degenerative MR (n = 10), 5 patients were eligible for MV repair after removal of the MitraClip. The 1-year survival following surgical treatment was 81.3% and 75.0% in patients with functional and degenerative MR, respectively. No residual MR greater than mild during follow-up was observed in patients who underwent MV repair.ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery following failed transcatheter mitral valve repair is feasible and safe, with promising midterm survival. The surgical management should be tailored to the underlying valve pathology at the index procedure, the extent of damage of the MV leaflets and the type of previous intervention.
| S-EPMC9270869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMitral valve operations for failed transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) are increasing. This study investigated the indications, surgical procedures, and outcomes after surgery for failed TEER.MethodsWe analyzed records of patients who underwent mitral valve operations after TEER between January 2013 and September 2021. Patient characteristics, clip number and location, indications, timing, surgery type, and outcomes were evaluated.ResultsA total of 41 patients (median age, 77 years; 14 women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score, 9.4% [5.6%-12.6%]; and previous cardiac surgery in 21 patients) underwent mitral valve surgery at a median of 8 months (range, 4-16 months) after TEER. One clip was implanted in 24 patients and 2 or more in 17 patients. Indications for surgery were severe mitral regurgitation in 33, severe mitral stenosis in 1 patient, and both in 7 patients. Operations were performed via sternotomy in 37 patients and lateral thoracotomy in 4 patients. The mitral valve was replaced in all patients (bioprosthesis in 35 patients and a mechanical valve in 6 patients). Concomitant procedures were performed in 30 patients. Operative mortality was 5% (observed to expected ratio, 0.53) and did not differ for primary procedures versus reoperations. Echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated no or trivial mitral regurgitation in 34 patients, mild mitral regurgitation in 5 patients, and moderate perivalvular mitral regurgitation in 1 patient with severe mitral annular calcification. At a median follow-up of 1.5 years (interquartile range, 4.7 months-2.7 years), the actuarial survival was 79%.ConclusionsMitral valve replacement can be performed safely after failed TEER with operative mortality lower than expected even in high-risk patients.Video abstract
| S-EPMC9366625 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC4128011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFor 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsCareful 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.
| S-EPMC7655552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranscatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of the mitral valve (MV) can be performed using the PASCAL or MitraClip devices. Few studies offer a head-to-head outcome comparison of these two devices.Material and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 1 January 2000 until 1 March 2023, were searched. Study protocol details were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023405400). Randomized Controlled Trials and observational studies reporting head-to-head clinical comparison of PASCAL and MitraClip devices were eligible for selection. Patients with severe functional or degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) who had undergone TEER of the MV with either PASCAL or MitraClip devices were included in the meta-analysis. Data from six studies (five observational and one randomized clinical trial) were extracted and analyzed. The main outcomes were a reduction in MR to 2+ or less, improvement of New York Heart Association (NYHA) and 30-day all-cause mortality. Peri-procedural mortality, success rate and adverse events were also compared.ResultsData from 785 and 796 patients that underwent TEER using PASCAL and MitraClip, respectively, were analyzed. Thirty-day all-cause mortality (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.51, 95% CI 0.79-2.89), MR reduction to maximum 2+ (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02) and NYHA improvement (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) were similar in both device groups. Both devices had high and similar success rates (96.9% and 96.7% for the PASCAL and MitraClip group, respectively, p value = 0.91). MR reduction to 1+ or less at discharge was similar in both device groups (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.19). Composite peri-procedural and in-hospital mortality was 0.64% and 1.66% in the PASCAL and MitraClip groups, respectively (p value = 0.094). Rates of peri-procedural cerebrovascular accidents were 0.26% in PASCAL and 1.01% in MitraClip (p value = 0.108).ConclusionsBoth PASCAL and MitraClip devices have high success and low complication rates for TEER of the MV. PASCAL was not inferior to MitraClip in reducing the MR level at discharge.
| S-EPMC10219028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Recurrence of mitral regurgitation (MR) after surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR) varies and may require reoperation. Redo mitral valve surgery can be technically challenging and is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of MitraClip as a treatment strategy after failed SMVR and identify procedure modifications to overcome technical challenges. Methods and Results This international multicenter observational retrospective study collected information for all patients from 16 high-volume hospitals who were treated with MitraClip after failed SMVR from October 29, 2009, until August 1, 2017. Data were anonymously collected. Technical and device success were recorded per modified Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Overall, 104 consecutive patients were included. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.5% and median age was 73 years. At baseline, the majority of patients (82%) were in New York Heart Association class ≥III and MR was moderate or higher in 86% of patients. The cause of MR pre-SMVR was degenerative in 50%, functional in 35%, mixed in 8%, and missing/unknown in 8% of patients. The median time between SMVR and MitraClip was 5.3 (1.9-9.7) years. Technical and device success were 90% and 89%, respectively. Additional/modified imaging was applied in 21% of cases. An MR reduction of ≥1 grade was achieved in 94% of patients and residual MR was moderate or less in 90% of patients. In-hospital all-cause mortality was 2%, and 86% of patients were in New York Heart Association class ≤II. Conclusions MitraClip is a safe and less invasive treatment option for patients with recurrent MR after failed SMVR. Additional/modified imaging may help overcome technical challenges during leaflet grasping.
| S-EPMC8174343 | biostudies-literature