Does Mitral Valve Repair Offer an Advantage Over Replacement in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement?

Mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement using a mosaic porcine bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve repair

This study retrospectively evaluated the mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using a stented porcine aortic valve bioprosthesis (Mosaic; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with concomitant mitral valve (MV) repair. From 1999 to 2014, 157 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 75 [70-79] years; 47% women) underwent SAVR with concomitant MV repair (SAVR + MV repair), and 1045 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 76 [70-80] years; 54% women) underwent SAVR only at 10 centers in Japan as part of the long-term multicenter Japan Mosaic valve (J-MOVE) study. The 5-year overall survival rate was 81.5% ± 4.1% in the SAVR + MV repair group and 85.1% ± 1.4% in the SAVR only group, and the 8-year overall survival rates were 75.2% ± 5.7% and 78.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed no significant difference in the survival rates between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.40; P = 0.576). Among women with mild or moderate mitral regurgitation who were not receiving dialysis, those who underwent SAVR + MV repair, were aged > 75 years, and had a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 30-75% tended to have a lower mortality risk. In conclusion, this subgroup analysis of the J-MOVE cohort showed relevant mid-term outcomes after SAVR + MV repair.

Procedural selection strategy and clinical outcomes in mitral valve surgery with concomitant aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

Introduction

In the context of double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients involving both the aortic and mitral valves, a clinically significant problem has been that no clear criteria or surgical strategies have been reported for the selection of mitral valve plasty (MVP) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) for mitral valve disease management during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to achieve better clinical outcomes. This study investigated valve durability and survival using our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR in elderly patients.

Methods

Eighty-six patients aged > 65 years (mean 75 years) who underwent a double-valve procedure for mitral valve surgery with concomitant SAVR from 2010 to 2022 were reviewed. Our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR for the elderly patients was as follows: MVP was selected for patients in whom mitral valve disease was expected to be controlled with simple surgical procedures (n = 47), otherwise MVR was selected (n = 39).

Results

The hospital mortality rate was 8% (n = 7). The mean follow-up was 4.9 (0-12.3) years. And the 10-year survival rate was 62%. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95%. No mitral valve reintervention was performed during follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation in 86% of cases at 10 years.

Conclusion

In double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients, appropriate selection of the mitral valve procedure with concomitant SAVR provided better early and long-term survival and valve durability. This surgical strategy may be beneficial in elderly patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease.

Mixed-Valve Disease: Management of Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Mitral Regurgitation: Thresholds for Surgery Versus Percutaneous Therapies

Significant mitral regurgitation (MR), frequently seen in the presence of severe aortic stenosis (AS), results in an association that negatively affects prognosis and imposes particular challenges for both the assessment of the severity of valvular lesions and decisions regarding treatment allocation. This article reviews the available literature with regards to the assessment of MR and AS in the presence of both; surgical management and results in patients with concomitant AS and MR; the effect of MR on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement; the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on MR severity; and percutaneous treatment for MR after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The authors aim to provide assistance in the decision-making process to treat patients with either a higher-risk double-valve procedure or a simpler, but perhaps incomplete, single-valve option.

Long-term results after concomitant mitral and aortic valve surgery: repair or replacement?

OBJECTIVES

The reported superiority of mitral valve (MV) repair for isolated MV regurgitation has not been confirmed in mitroaortic valve surgery. Our goals were to evaluate the feasibility of repair in patients undergoing mitral and aortic valve surgery and to identify factors predisposing to MV replacement, to compare long-term outcomes (survival and MV reoperation) of repair and replacement and to perform a subgroup analysis in patients with rheumatic MV disease.

METHODS

From January 1992 through December 2016, 1122 consecutive patients were submitted to concomitant aortic and MV surgery in 2 different centres (Coimbra and Santiago). Of these, 837 patients underwent MV repair (74.6%) and 285 patients had MV replacement (25.4%). Rheumatic aetiology was predominant (666 patients; 59.4%). Cumulative follow-up was 9522.6 patient-years (25th-75th percentile 2.6-13.2 years) and was complete for 95.6% of patients. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed in 232 patients for comparing each treatment option (MV repair and MV replacement).

RESULTS

Previous MV intervention, rheumatic aetiology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher degrees of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were independently correlated with MV replacement. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in patients with MV replacement (4.2% vs 1.8%, P = 0.021) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (4.7% vs 1.7%, P = 0.06). Late survival was lower in the MV replacement group (53.3 ± 4.5% vs 61.7 ± 2.0% at 12 years; P = 0.026) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (54.6 ± 4.9% vs 63.2 ± 3.8%, P = 0.062) and rheumatic subgroup (57.9 ± 4.8% vs 68.0 ± 2.5%, P = 0.018). Freedom from MV reoperation at 12 years was higher in the MV repair group (94.7 ± 1.1% vs 89.0 ± 3.1%, P = 0.004) but similar in patients with rheumatic MV disease.

CONCLUSIONS

MV repair can be performed in most patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. It should be the procedure of choice whenever feasible, because it is associated with lower early and late mortality rates and with freedom from reoperation in non-rheumatic patients.

Outcomes of mitral valve surgery during concomitant aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates outcomes of mitral valve surgery (MVS), replacement (MVR), and repair (MVr), during concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing MVS with concomitant AVR between 2011 and 2017 at a single center were reviewed. Patients were stratified into MVR versus MVr with concomitant AVR. Outcomes included early and midterm mortality, hospital re-admissions, re-operations, and complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used for risk-adjustment.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-four patients underwent MVS with concomitant AVR: 247 (58.3%) MVr and 177 (41.7%) MVR. In unadjusted analysis, there was a non-significant increase in 30-day mortality with MVR, with no differences in 1- and 5-year mortality (30-day: 5.6% vs 10.1%, P = 0.081; 1-year: 14% vs 18.2%, P = 0.181; 5-year: 35.1% vs 37.8%, P = 0.232). Freedom from re-admission and mitral reoperation were comparable. Freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation at 5 years was 78% in MVr patients. Those undergoing MVR had increased postoperative blood transfusions, acute renal failure, and pleural effusions requiring drainage (P each <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

MVr can be performed during concomitant AVR without an adverse impact on longer-term outcomes, including mortality, re-admissions, and mitral reoperations. The majority of patients have durable repairs at 5 years although durability is less than that reported in isolated MVS.

Pathophysiology and management of multivalvular disease

Multivalvular disease (MVD) is common among patients with valvular disease, and has a complex pathophysiology dependent on the specific combination of valve lesions. Diagnosis is challenging because several echocardiographic methods commonly used for the assessment of stenosis or regurgitation have been validated only in patients with single-valve disease. Decisions about the timing and type of treatment should be made by a multidisciplinary heart valve team, on a case-by-case basis. Several factors should be considered, including the severity and consequences of the MVD, the patient's life expectancy and comorbidities, the surgical risk associated with combined valve procedures, the long-term risk of morbidity and mortality associated with multiple valve prostheses, and the likelihood and risk of reoperation. The introduction of transcatheter valve therapies into clinical practice has provided new treatment options for patients with MVD, and decision-making algorithms on how to combine surgical and percutaneous treatment options are evolving rapidly. In this Review, we discuss the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of MVD, focusing on the combinations of valve pathologies that are most often encountered in clinical practice.

Impact of Mitral Regurgitation on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) and mitral regurgitation (MR) are the two most common valvular lesions referred for surgical intervention in Europe and frequently co-exist. In patients with both severe AS and significant MR referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a concomitant mitral valve intervention is typically performed if the MR is severe, despite the higher associated perioperative risk. The management of moderate MR among SAVR patients is controversial and depends on a number of factors including MR aetiology (i.e., organic versus functional MR), feasibility of repair and patient risk profile. Moderate or severe MR is present in up to one-third of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), is mainly of functional aetiology and is typically left untreated. Although data are conflicting, a growing body of evidence suggests that significant MR exerts an adverse effect on both short- and long-term clinical outcomes after TAVI. Moderate or severe MR improves in just over half of patients following TAVI and recent data suggest MR is more likely to improve among patients receiving a balloon-expandable as compared with a self-expandable transcatheter heart valve.