Third time mitral valve replacement-lessons learned

Outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for redo mitral valve surgery according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A minimally invasive approach through right mini-thoracotomy for redo mitral valve surgery may improve patients' outcomes compared to median sternotomy. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of both procedures according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC). This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Literature searching was performed in several databases including PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Proquest up to 28 February 2022. Meta-analysis using proportions or means was applied. A total of 13 retrospective cohort articles were included in this study. The incidence of in-hospital mortality (3% vs 9.2%, OR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.21-0.58; P ≤ 0.0001), reintervention for bleeding (3.8% vs 5.9%, OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04), and acute renal failure (5% vs 12%, OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.23-0.65; P = 0.0003) was significantly lower in mini-thoracotomy (MINI) group compared to median sternotomy (STER) group. The incidence of neurologic events (3.4% vs 5.5%, OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.4-1.08; P = 0.1) and arrhythmia (19.5% vs 25.5%, OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.38-1.09; P = 0.1) were also lower in MINI group compared to STER group but was not significant statistically. No significant differences were found in myocardial infarct (1% vs 1%, OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.06-8.85; P = 0.79) between MINI and STER group. A minimally invasive surgery through right mini-thoracotomy is associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality, reintervention for bleeding, and acute renal failure. It is a safe alternative to median sternotomy for redo mitral valve surgery.

Minimally Invasive Procedure versus Conventional Redo Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Surgery in Patients with Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The heightened morbidity and mortality associated with repeat cardiac surgery are well documented. Redo median sternotomy (MS) and minimally invasive valve surgery are options for patients with prior cardiac surgery who require mitral valve surgery (MVS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of redo MS and minimally invasive MVS (MIMVS) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus for studies comparing outcomes of redo MS and MIMVS for MVS. To calculate risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, we employed a random-effects model.

Results

We included 12 retrospective observational studies, comprising 4157 participants (675 for MIMVS; 3482 for redo MS). Reductions in mortality (RR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80), length of hospital stay (MD, -4.23; 95% CI, -5.77 to -2.68), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -2.02; 95% CI, -3.17 to -0.88), and new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) risk (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.61) were statistically significant and favored MIMVS (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or risk of perioperative stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation, surgical site infection, or reoperation for bleeding (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The current literature, which primarily consists of retrospective comparisons, underscores certain benefits of MIMVS over redo MS. These include decreased mortality, shorter hospital and ICU stays, and reduced AKI risk. Given the lack of high-quality evidence, prospective randomized control trials with adequate power are necessary to investigate long-term outcomes.

Redo mitral valve surgery following prior mitral valve repair

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy following a failed mitral valve repair remains unclear. This study evaluated early and long-term outcomes of redo mitral valve repair (MVr) and replacement (MVR) after prior mitral valve repair.

METHODS

Patients undergoing redo mitral valve surgery after prior mitral valve repair at a single institution between 2002 and 2014 were reviewed. Primary outcomes included operative mortality (30-day or in-hospital mortality) and long-term freedom from mitral valve reoperation and death. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

305 patients underwent redo MVr (n = 48) or MVR (n = 257) after prior mitral valve repair. Concomitant procedures included tricuspid valve repair or replacement (23%), aortic valve replacement (6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (4%), with no differences between cohorts. 18% were performed via right mini-thoracotomy (24% MVr vs 18% MVR, P = 0.31). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted operative mortality were lower with MVr (0% vs 8%, P = 0.04). Rates of postoperative complications were similar except for blood product transfusion (35% MVr vs 59% MVR, P = 0.003) and prolonged mechanical ventilation (8% MVr vs 29% MVR, P = 0.003). Long-term freedom from mortality was comparable: 96% MVr versus 86% MVR at 1 year and 78% MVr versus 68% MVR at 5 years (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

When technically feasible, mitral valve re-repair can be safely performed with outcomes comparable to MVR.

Short- and long-term outcomes following redo valvular surgery

AIM

We reviewed our experience in redo valvular surgery to evaluate trends in short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 414 patients (mean age, 62.8 ± 13.6 years) who underwent redo valvular surgery in the past 25 years. A total of 301 patients (54.2%) underwent first-time redo valvular surgeries; 178 (32.1%) were second redos, 60 (10.8%) were third redos, and 16 were fourth redos (2.9%). The mean follow-up period was 6.8 ± 6.3 years.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 5.8%. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (P = 0.0007, odds ratio = 4.403) and hemodialysis (P = 0.0383, odds ratio = 7.196) were risk factors for hospital death. Long-term survival rates at 15 and 20 years were 64.7% ± 4.3% and 59.1% ± 5.0%, respectively. Predictors of late death were first time redo (P = 0.0076, hazard ratio = 0.422) and age younger than 61 years (P = 0.0005, hazard ratio = 0.229). There were significant differences in long-term survival between NYHA classes I/II and III/IV (log-rank test, P = 0.0419) and between the time from redo surgery (log-rank test, P = 0.0189) and age (log-rank test, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital mortality rate for redo valve surgery has improved. Early referral for redo surgery can contribute to improving early and late outcomes.