Dataset Information

Re-repair vs. Replacement for Failed Mitral Valve Repair: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

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.).