Redo mitral valve surgery following prior mitral valve repair

Outcomes after transcatheter mitral valve implantation in valve-in-valve, valve-in-ring, and valve-in-mitral annular calcification

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) using predominantly balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THV) in patients with a landing zone for a percutaneously delivered prosthesis.

BACKGROUND

Patients with a degenerated mitral valve bioprosthesis, annuloplasty ring, and mitral annulus calcification (MAC) considered at high surgical risk currently represent a treatment challenge. TMVI is an alternative treatment option.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with symptomatic degenerated mitral valve bioprosthesis, or annuloplasty ring, and MAC treated with TMVI between November 2011 and April 2021. Endpoints were defined according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria and included device and procedure success at 30 days as well as mortality at 30 days and 1 year after the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients underwent TMVI (valve in valve [ViV = 56], valve in ring [ViR = 11], and valve in MAC [ViMAC = 10]). There was a trend toward higher technical success (all = 93.5%, ViV = 96.4%, ViR = 90.9%, ViMAC = 80%, p = 0.06) and lower 30-day (all = 11.7%, ViV = 10.7%, ViR = 9.1%, ViMAC = 20%, p = 0.49) and 1-year mortality (all = 26%, ViV = 23.2%, ViR = 27.3%, ViMAC= 40%, p = 0.36) after ViV and ViR compared to ViMAC.

CONCLUSION

TMVI represents a reasonable treatment option in selected patients with MAC or who are poor candidates for redo mitral valve surgery. Technical success and survival up to 1 year were not significantly dependent on the subgroup in which TMVI was performed.

Mechanical valve replacement for patients with rheumatic heart disease: the reality of INR control in Africa and beyond

The majority of patients requiring heart valve replacement in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) need it for rheumatic heart disease (RHD). While the young age of such patients largely prescribes replacement with mechanical prostheses, reliable anticoagulation management is often unattainable under the prevailing socioeconomic circumstances. Cases of patients with clotted valves presenting for emergency surgery as a consequence of poor adherence to anticoagulation control are frequent. The operative mortality rates of reoperations for thrombosed mechanical valves are several times higher than those for tissue valves, and long-term results are also disappointing. Under-anticoagulation prevails in these regions that has clearly been linked to poor international normalised ratio (INR) monitoring. In industrialised countries, safe anticoagulation is defined as >60%-70% of the time in the therapeutic range (TTR). In LMICs, the TTR has been found to be in the range of twenty to forty percent. In this study, we analysed >20,000 INR test results of 552 consecutive patients receiving a mechanical valve for RHD. Only 27% of these test results were in the therapeutic range, with the vast majority (61%) being sub-therapeutic. Interestingly, the post-operative frequency of INR tests of one every 3-4 weeks in year 1 had dropped to less than 1 per year by year 7. LMICs need to use clinical judgement and assess the probability of insufficient INR monitoring prior to uncritically applying Western guidelines predominantly based on chronological age. The process of identification of high-risk subgroups in terms of non-adherence to anticoagulation control should take into account both the adherence history of >50% of patients with RHD who were in chronic atrial fibrillation prior to surgery as well as geographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

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.

Repeat crossclamp after failed initial degenerative mitral valve repair is safe and successful

Objective

Surgical risk and long-term outcomes when re-crossclamp is required during degenerative mitral valve repair are unknown. We examined the outcomes of patients who required re-crossclamp for mitral valve reintervention.

Methods

Adults undergoing mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease at a single center from 2007 to 2021 who required more than 1 crossclamp for mitral valve reintervention were included. Outcomes including major morbidity and 30-day mortality were collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis characterized survival and freedom from recurrent mitral regurgitation.

Results

A total of 69 patients required re-crossclamp for mitral valve reintervention. Of those, 72% (n = 50) underwent successful re-repair and the remaining underwent mitral valve replacement (28%, n = 19). Major morbidity occurred in 23% (n = 16). There was no 30-day mortality, and median long-term survival was 10.9 years for those undergoing re-repair and 7.2 years for those undergoing replacement (P = .79). Midterm echocardiography follow-up was available for 67% (33/50) of patients who were successfully re-repaired with a median follow-up of 20 (interquartile range, 7-37) months. At late follow-up, 90% of patients had mild or less mitral regurgitation. Of those re-repaired, 2 patients later required mitral valve reintervention.

Conclusions

Patients requiring re-crossclamp for residual mitral regurgitation had low perioperative morbidity and no mortality. Most patients underwent successful re-repair (vs mitral valve replacement) with excellent valve function and long-term survival. In the event of unsatisfactory repair at the time of mitral valve repair, attempt at re-repair is safe and successful with the appropriate valvar anatomy.

Re-repair vs. Replacement for Failed Mitral Valve Repair: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of re-repair with those of mitral valve replacement (MVR) for failed initial mitral valve repair (MVr).

Methods

We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared mitral valve re-repair with MVR for the treatment of failed initial MVr. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and subjected to a meta-analysis. Odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR), ratio difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse-variance methods for mode of repair failure, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up outcomes.

Results

Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 938 patients, and mean/median follow-up ranged from 1.8 to 8.9 years. Pooled incidence of technical failure was 41% (RD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.5; P = 0.00; I2 = 86%; 6 studies, 846 patients). Pooled mitral valve re-repair rate was 36% (RD: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.26–0.46; P = 0; I2 = 91%; 8 studies, 938 patients). Pooled data showed significantly lower perioperative mortality (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 07 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; P = 0.008; 6 studies, 824 patients) and significantly lower long-term mortality (HR:0.42; 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; P = 0; 7 studies, 903 patients) in the re-repair group compared with MVR.

Conclusions

Mitral valve re-repair was associated with better immediate and sustained outcomes for failed MVr and should be recommended if technically feasible.

Mitral Valve Annuloplasty Failure and Percutaneous Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mitral valve repair is a common surgical procedure for both primary and secondary mitral regurgitation. With operations performed earlier in disease progression and increased patient longevity, the need for a repeat intervention is not infrequent. With the associated risks of reoperation and patient comorbidities, percutaneous techniques for acute or delayed failure after ring annuloplasty are emerging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current commercially available devices, used in "off-label" ways, such as the MitraClip, may be effective in repairing recurrent mitral regurgitation after annuloplasty. Similarly, a valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve replacement can be considered in patients at high risk for surgical reoperation. These procedures are not without risk, for example, resultant mitral stenosis in the setting of edge-to-edge repair or left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction with valve-in-ring transcatheter mitral valve replacement. Newer devices are emerging to permit more options for this subset of patients, which include transcatheter valves that are specifically designed for the mitral position. Undoubtedly, surgical reoperation has increased risk as compared to primary operation. Though percutaneous options are evolving, use in this patient population is currently limited to "off-label" use and is also associated with procedural complexities and risk. It is prudent for cardiologists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists to weigh risks, benefits, and limitations when considering patients for surgical reoperation, percutaneous repair, or transcatheter replacement after failed mitral annuloplasty.

Reoperative Mitral Surgery Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review

Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) and valve-in-ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo-MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo-MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty-two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo-MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30-day mortality. MVIV resulted in >95% procedural success with 30-day and 1-year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%-6%), valve migration (0%-9%), and residual regurgitation (0%-6%). Comparisons of redo-MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year, P=0.92), albeit higher rates of major bleeding and arrhythmias with redo-MVR. MVIR resulted in 0% to 34% mortality at 1 year, whereas both redo-MVr and MVR for failed repairs were performed with minimal mortality and durable long-term results. MVIV is therefore a viable alternative to redo-MVR for structural valve degeneration, whereas redo-MVr or redo-MVR is preferred for failed MVr given the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, not all patients will be candidates for MVIV/MVIR because anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from adequately addressing the underlying pathology.

The trans-septal approach in transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation for degenerative bioprosthesis

Background

Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve Implantation (TMViVI) has recently emerged as a novel therapy for degenerated mitral valve bioprosthesis. Re-operative mitral valve surgery is associated with a substantial risk of mortality and morbidity. The objective of this study was to describe the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantations in our cardiac center.

Methods

Twenty-two patients underwent the valve-in-valve procedure because of bioprosthesis degeneration from March 2017 to October 2018. Clinical, echocardiographic, procedural details and survival at follow up were assessed.

Results

Eight patients refused re-operative cardiac surgery while others were deemed a high risk for conventional re-operative sternotomy. All patients had TMViVI performed via a trans-septal approach, and the prosthesis was implanted successfully with immediate hemodynamic improvement in 20 patients. One patient had tamponade (4.55%), two had permanent pacemaker insertion (9.09%), two patients had a renal impairment (9.09%), and three patients had vascular complications (13.64%). There was one aborted procedure for the failure to cross the tissue valve with a transcatheter valve, and one patient was converted to an emergency mitral valve surgery. All patients were discharged in NYHA class I/II and NYHA class was markedly improved at one-year follow-up (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Trans-septal mitral valve-in-valve implantation can be performed safely for degenerative mitral valve bioprosthesis and with favorable early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.

Mitral valve re-repair vs replacement following failed initial repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The optimal treatment strategy following a failed mitral valve repair remains unclear. This study aims to compare and analyse available studies which report the clinical outcomes post mitral valve re-repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR) after a prior mitral valve repair.

Methods

Based on PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed utilising PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases to identify retrospective cohort studies that reported outcomes of MVr and MVR after a prior mitral valve repair. Data regarding operative mortality, clinical outcomes and complications were extracted, synthesized and meta-analysed where appropriate.

Results

Eight studies with a total cohort of 1632 patients were used. After analysis, no significant differences in the short term and long-term operative mortality, incidence of stroke, congestive heart failure, Grade 1 and Grade 2 mitral regurgitation, requirement of 3rd mitral valve operation and reoperation due bleeding were found between the two groups. However, a slightly higher incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.11, CI: 0.02 to 0.17, I² = 0%, p = 0.02) was observed in the MVR group, as compared to the MVr group.

Conclusion

MVr appears to be a viable alternative to MVR for mitral valve reoperation, given that they are associated with similar post-operative outcomes.

Right mini-thoracotomy approach in patients undergoing redo mitral valve procedure

Aim

A minimally invasive technique is an attractive option in cardiac surgery. In this study, we present our experience with minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) via right mini-thoracotomy on patients undergoing mitral valve procedure as reoperation.

Methods

From 2017 until 2019, 20 patients underwent reoperation of the mitral valve through a right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Cardiopulmonary bypass was established through cannulation of the femoral vessels. All patients requiring isolated re-operative mitral valve surgery with suitable femoral vessels for cannulation were included in the study. Patients requiring concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or with peripheral artery disease were excluded.

Results

The mean age was 65 ± 12 years. The average log. EuroSCORE was 9 ± 5%. Ten patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) underwent re-repair of the mitral valve. Seven of them were post mitral valve repair (MVR), one was post aortic valve replacement (AVR), one had tricuspid valve repair, and one other patient had CABG before. Ten patients underwent mitral valve replacement due to mixed mitral valve disease (n = 9) or mitral valve endocarditis (n = 1). Eight patients were post MVR and 2 had AVR before. The mean time to reoperation was 7.5 ± 8 years. In-hospital mortality was 5% (n = 1). The mean cross clamp time was 54 ± 26 min. Postoperative echocardiography revealed competent valve function in all cases with mean ejection fraction of 55 ± 9%. The Kaplan-Meier 1- and 2-year survival was 95%.

Conclusion

The MICS approach for mitral valve reoperation in selected patients seems to be safe and feasible. It is also a surgical option for high-risk patients.