Mitral valve surgery in elderly patients with mitral regurgitation: repair or replacement with tissue valve?

Mitral valve repair for mitral regugitation in the elderly: Yes, we have to, but look at the etiologies!

The meta-analysis by Di Tommaso et al. demonstrated as elderly patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) undergoing mitral valve repair had lower short-term mortality and higher long-term survival with respect to patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. The benefit of repair is such, that initial surgical strategy is advisable in the elderly even in case of mild symptoms if compared with conservative management. However, even if repair can be performed in presence of some specific etiologies, as degenerative MR or secondary MR, there are always cases where a replacement can be an acceptable solution compared to a repair with uncertain future, regardless of our believes and our technical ability.

Benefits of mitral valve repair over replacement in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Mitral valve (MV) repair has demonstrated excellent short- and long-term outcomes, however, its merit in the elderly population is still debated. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that have compared the MV repair to replacement in the elderly population.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for any study published on MV surgery on elderly patients (≥75 years old). A pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis was done to evaluate short-term mortality, postoperative complications, surgical timings, and long-term survival rates.

RESULTS

A total of nine retrospective observational studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pooled meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of short-term mortality for the MV repair group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.41 [0.24-0.71], p-value = .005). Postoperative neurological complications were in favor of repair, although not significantly (RR = 0.49 [0.21-1.11], p-value = .07). Operative timings (cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time) were not different between the groups although no data were available on the complexity of the repairs. Long-term survival rates were in favor of the repairs (pooled treatment effect of -0.47 [-0.64; -0.29], p = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

MV surgery is a safe and effective procedure for the elderly. MV repair demonstrated better short-term outcomes compared to replacement. Long-term survival rates are significantly better after repair.

Mitral valve repair versus replacement in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although mitral valve repair (MVP) is generally accepted as the standard treatment for mitral valve disease, in older patients, there is increasing debate about whether MVP is superior to mitral valve replacement (MVR). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to compare MVP vs. MVR in the elderly population.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to February 2017 and scrutinized the references of relevant literatures. Only studies of MVP vs. MVR in the elderly patients (aged 70 years or older) that were published after 2000 were included.

Results

The retrieval process yielded seven observational clinical studies with 1,809 patients. Compared with MVR, MVP was associated with a significantly reduced 30-day mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64], with shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay (days) (weighted mean difference: -1.47, 95% CI: -2.47--0.48) and less postoperative complications (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.86). In addition, our study also demonstrated improved 1-year (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08-1.24) and 5-year (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.13-1.41) survival rates following MVP. There was no difference in reoperations between these two surgery approaches.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis indicates that elderly patients who receive MVP have better early and late outcomes than those undergoing MVR. MVP may be the preferred strategy for mitral valve surgery in the elderly population.