Surgical repair of ischemic mitral regurgitation: one ring does not fit all

Mitral Valve Repair vs. Replacement by Different Etiologies - A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

When mitral valve (MV) surgery is indicated, repair is preferred over replacement; however, this preference is not supported by evidence from clinical trials. Furthermore, the benefits of MV repair may not be universal for all etiologies of MV disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study identified a total of 18,428 patients who underwent MV repair (n=4,817) or MV replacement (n=13,611) during 2001-2018 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. These patients were classified into 4 etiologies: infective endocarditis (IE, n=2,678), rheumatic heart disease (RHD, n=4,524), ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR, n=3,893), and degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR, n=7,333). After propensity matching, all-cause mortality during follow-up was lower among patients receiving MV repair than among patients receiving MV replacement in the IE, IMR, and DMR groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.93; HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; and HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.84, respectively). However, in the RHD group, the MV reoperation rate was higher after MV repair than after MV replacement (subdistribution HR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.02-3.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with MV replacement, MV repair was associated with a lower late mortality in patients with IE, IMR, and DMR, and a higher risk of reoperation in patients with RHD.

Mitral valve repair versus replacement in severe ischemic mitral regurgitation systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a serious consequence of coronary artery disease. The choice of the optimal surgical strategy remains debatable. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of mitral valve repair (RPR) versus replacement (RPL) regarding perioperative mortality, overall mortality, reoperation, recurrence of MR, and reverse remodeling after surgery.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using the searchable databases of Google Scholar, Pubmed, and Embase, and the search terms mitral valve, IMR, RPR, RPL, and coronary artery bypass grafting. The main outcomes of interest are perioperative mortality, overall mortality, reoperation, recurrence of MR, and reverse remodeling after surgery. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during the surgery or within 30 days after the operation.

RESULTS

There was a trend towards better perioperative survival in the RPR arm. However, the difference fell short of statistical significance [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 0.66 (0.41-1.07), p = 0.09]. Patients submitted to RPR experienced a significantly higher MR recurrence rate when compared with their counterparts submitted to RPL [OR (95% CI): 16.8 (5.07-55.7, p = 0.00001)].

CONCLUSION

There is a trend towards lower perioperative mortality in RPR in comparison to RPL. On the other hand, RPL was associated with significantly lower recurrence rates.