Repair of infected mitral valves: what have we learned?

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve plasty or replacement in patients with infectious endocarditis: A meta-analysis

Background

For degenerative mitral disease, more and more evidences support that mitral valve plasty (MVP) has much better clincial outcomes than mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the advantages of MVP in patients suffering from infectious endocarditis (IE) are unclear. To evaluate the appropriateness of MVP in IE patients, we conducted this meta-analysis. Based on the difference between active and healed phase, we not only compared the result of patients with IE, but also identified the subgroup with active IE.

Methods

We systematically searched the clinical trials comparing clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients suffering from IE. Relevant articles were searched from January 1, 2000 to March 18, 2021 in Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Studies were excluded if they were with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score less than 6 or lacking of direct comparisons between MVP and MVR.

Results

23 studies were involved and 25,615 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed fewer adverse events and early or long-term death in the MVP group. However, more reoperations existed in this patient group. And the reinfection rate was close between two groups. Similar results were observed after identifying active IE subgroup, but there is no difference in the freedom from reoperation due to all-events.

Conclusions

Although limitimations exited in this study, patients suffering from IE can benefit from both MVP and MVR. For surgeons with consummate skills, MVP can be the preferred choice for suitable IE patients.

Feasibility and outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with infective endocarditis

Background

Valve repair is the treatment of choice for native mitral valve regurgitation. The feasibility of repair when the defect is caused by acute infective endocarditis (IE) is debated. This study aims to compare the outcome of repair and replacement procedures, to report the rate of repair in a single surgical center, and to review the literature on this topic.

Results

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients with native mitral IE, potentially eligible for surgical repair. Of these 108, 90 (83%) underwent surgery, and 18 were treated conservatively. Among the 90 surgical patients, 57 (63%) underwent valve replacement and 33 valve repair (37%). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. The two primary endpoints were mortality and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary endpoints were the post-operative incidence of major adverse events (hospitalization for any cause, pacemaker implantation, new onset of atrial fibrillation, sternal dehiscence), left ventricular systolic function (LVSF), and valvular function at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up. All-cause mortality was lower for valve repair, although not significantly (p = 0.86), as well as nonfatal adverse events (p = 0.92) and relapse rate (p = 0.20) at 3 years. We did not find differences between the two groups at echocardiographic follow-up, neither for left ventricular systolic function (p = 0.22), nor for valvular continence (p = 0.28).

Conclusions

In our experience, the mid-term outcome of repair in IE is comparable to valve replacement and should be considered whenever possible, as in degenerative valve disease. The review of the literature supports this strategy.

Mitral valve repair for infective endocarditis: Kobe experience

Objectives

We retrospectively analyzed our experience of mitral valve repair for native mitral valve endocarditis in a single institution.

Methods

From January 1991 to October 2011, 171 consecutive patients underwent surgery for infective endocarditis. Of these, 147 (86%) had mitral valve repair. At the time of surgery, 98 patients had healed (group A) and 49 had active infective endocarditis (group B). Repair procedures included resection of all infected tissue and thick restricted post-infection tissue, leaflet and annulus reconstruction with treated autologous pericardium, chordal reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures, and ring annuloplasty if necessary. Fifty-two (35%) patients required concomitant procedures. The study endpoints were overall survival, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from valve-related events. The median follow-up was 78 months.

Results

There was one hospital death (hospital mortality 0.7%). Survival at 10 years was 88.5% ± 3.5% with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.052). Early reoperation was required in 4 patients in group B due to persistent infection or procedure failure. Freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 99% ± 1.0% in group A and 89.6 ± 4.0% in group B (p = 0.024). Event-free survival at 10 years was 79.3% ± 4.8% (group A: 83.4% ± 5.9%, group B: 72.6% ± 6.9%, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

Mitral valve repair was highly successful using autologous pericardium, chordal reconstruction, and ring annuloplasty if required. Long-term results were acceptable in terms survival, freedom from reoperation, and event-free survival. Mitral valve repair is recommended for mitral infective endocarditis in most patients.