Concomitant mitral valve surgery with aortic valve replacement: a 21-year experience with a single mechanical prosthesis

Outcome of patients with double valve surgery between 2009 and 2018 at University Hospital Basel, Switzerland

BACKGROUND

In isolated mitral valve regurgitation general consensus on surgery is to favor repair over replacement excluding rheumatic etiology or endocarditis. If concomitant aortic valve replacement is performed however, clinical evidence is more ambiguous and no explicit guidelines exist on the choice of mitral valve treatment. Both, double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement in combination with concomitant mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP) have been proven to be feasible procedures. In our single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study, we compared the outcome of these two surgical techniques focusing on mortality and morbidity.

METHODS

89 patients underwent DVR (n = 41) or AVR + MVP (n = 48) in our institution between 2009 and 2018. Follow-up data was collected using electronic patient records, by contacting treating physicians and by telephone interviews. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyze mortality during follow-up and Cox regression to investigate potential predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up duration of 4.5 [IQR 2.9 to 6.1] years, there was no significant difference in mortality between both cohorts. Thirty days mortality was 6.3% in the DVR and 7% in the AVR + MVP cohort. Overall mortality amounted to 17% for DVR and 23% for AVR + MVP. DVR was the preferred procedure for valve disease of rheumatic etiology and for endocarditis, while in degenerative valves AVR + MVP was predominant. More biological valves were used in the AVR + MVP cohort (p < 0.001) and more mechanical valves were implanted in the DVR cohort. The rate of rehospitalization, deterioration of left ventricular ejection fraction and postoperative complications were equally distributed among the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Our data analysis showed that both DVR and AVR + MVP are safe and feasible options for double valve surgery. Based on our findings we could not prove superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Choosing the appropriate procedure for the patient should be influenced by valve etiology, patients' comorbidities and the surgeons' experience.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This was a retrospectively registered trial, registered on April 1st 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03667274.

Postoperative changes in left ventricular systolic function after combined mitral and aortic valve replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease

BACKGROUNDS

We sought to identify short- and long-term changes in postoperative left ventricular systolic function in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) who underwent combined aortic and mitral valve replacement.

METHODS

We analyzed 146 patients according to their preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (113 with preoperative LVEF ≥50% and 33 with preoperative LVEF <50%). A restricted cubic spline model was used to assess the effect of time on the postoperative changes in echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

There were no significant difference in preoperative and immediately postoperative LVEF before discharge in either group. During median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 1.3-4.7 years) after surgery, postoperative LVEF increased slightly and then plateaued in patients with preoperative LVEF ≥50%, whereas it increased over 3-4 years after surgery and then gradually decreased in patients with preoperative LVEF <50% (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Long-term postoperative LVEF showed a downward trend in RHD patients with reduced preoperative LVEF, whereas it reached a plateau in RHD patients with normal preoperative LVEF.

Survival and long-term outcomes after concomitant mitral and aortic valve replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease

Introduction

Double valve replacement (DVR) with a mechanical prosthesis is associated with a higher risk of mortality. We planned to study the survival rate, early and late mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients undergoing DVR for rheumatic heart disease, with various generations of prosthetic valves ranging from ball in cage to bileaflet prosthesis and tilting disc valves.

Materials and methodology

We followed up 277 patients with rheumatic heart disease who underwent DVR between August 1999 and November 2009, retrospectively, at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. Two hundred and fifty-nine patients were followed up for a minimum period of 10 years, and the follow-up period varied between 10 and 20 years. Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up after the surgery and could not be contacted. Their data was included till the time they appeared for follow-up last, for survival analysis. Survival analysis was carried out using the life table method to calculate the freedom from reoperation, survival rates and freedom from MACCE at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years post-DVR.

Results

The median duration of hospital stay was 8 days. The number of patients with stroke was 11 (4.26%), 21 (8.7%) and 29 (12%) at the end of 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years, respectively. A total of 5 (2%) patients underwent reoperation by the end of 10 years. Seven patients died either in hospital or in the first 30 days following operation, making the early mortality 2.5%. At the end of 1 year, a total of 16 patients (5.8%) died. The mortality at the end of 5 years was 6.8% (19 patients), and at the end of 10 years, it was 7.2% (20 patients). The survival rate of the study population was 94.9%, 93.02% and 93.02% at the completion of 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, respectively. The freedom from MACCE was 93.8%, 88.6% and 85% at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years, respectively. The freedom from re-operation was 98% at 10 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed an overall survival time of 226.3 months in the entire study population. The mean survival time in males was 227.5 months and in females was 206.3 months, with no statistically significant difference between the two. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed an association with mortality when DVR was combined with concomitant tricuspid valve repair procedures, with an odds ratio of 4.5 (p value 0.005). Multivariate logistic regression analysis also showed an association with mortality when tricuspid valve procedures were combined with DVR with an odds ratio of 5.25 (p value 0.003).

Conclusion

The operative mortality and morbidity for DVR have been significantly reduced with advancements in operative techniques, myocardial preservation and postoperative care. Patients can have an improved functional status following surgery, with good rates of freedom from re-operation and MACCE.

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.

Evaluation of variables responsible for hospital mortality in patients with rheumatic heart disease undergoing double valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To describe the hospital mortality and associated clinical and echocardiographic variables in patients with rheumatic disease who underwent double valve replacement surgery.

METHODS

This is a cross sectional descriptive study of mortality, performed in a referral hospital in Salvador, Bahia. Records from patients with rheumatic disease who underwent double valve replacement surgery during the years 2007-2011 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The studied sample comprises 104 patients and 60 (57.7%) were male. The mean age was 38.04±14.45. Sixty five bioprostheses and 38 mechanical prostheses were used in these patients at the time of surgery. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups, when we analyzed the following variables: the mean age (36.30±13.03 vs. 45.35±17.8 years-old, P=0.011), mean hemoglobin (11.10±2.19 vs. 9.22±2.26 g/dL, P=0.002), mean hematocrit (34.22±5.86 vs. 28.44±6.62%, P<0.001). New York Heart Association functional class III and IV (NYHA) (P=0.022) was statistically associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that the mean hemoglobin/hematocrit level and the NYHA functional class was the major variables associated to the mortality among these patients. Based on these data one may concern about the patient best moment for surgery and the patient hemoglobin level.

Mitral valve repair versus replacement for moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Whether to repair or replace the mitral valve for patients with significant mitral regurgitation undergoing aortic valve replacement is still controversial.

METHODS

From January 1990 to December 2011, a total of 663 patients underwent aortic valve replacement combined with mitral valve surgery. Among these, 253 patients (mean age 55.9 ± 14.5 years, 91 females) with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation were enrolled to compare the outcomes between double valve replacement (DVR group, n = 158) and aortic valve replacement plus mitral valve repair (AVR plus MVr group, n = 95). Survival and valve-related events were compared by the inverse-probability-treatment-weighted method using propensity scores to reduce treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

Early mortality was similar between the groups (1.9% in the DVR group when compared with 3.2% in the AVR plus MVr group, P = 0.55). During the mean follow-up period of 72.1 ± 56.7 months, 45 patients died (28 in DVR and 17 in AVR plus MVr) and 31 experienced valve-related events including valve reoperation in 11, anticoagulation-related bleeding in 14, thromboembolism complications in 9 and infective endocarditis in 3. After adjustment for baseline risk profiles, the DVR group showed no difference with regard to risks of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-4.01; P = 0.16) and valve-related events (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.40-3.30; P = 0.80) compared with the AVR plus MVr group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outcomes of either mitral valve repair or replacement for moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement show no statistical significance in terms of long-term survival and valve-related event rates, DVR seems more hazardous than AVR plus MVr based on the estimated HR in terms of survival.

Clinical and microbiologic features of multivalvular endocarditis

Multivalvular endocarditis accounts for 15% of all endocarditis. The mechanisms of spread of the infection differs whether endocarditis is only left-sided (involving both the mitral and aortic valves) or bilateral. In left-sided bivalvular endocarditis, it is often a secondary mitral lesion following a primary aortic endocarditis. Multivalvular endocarditis often results in severe and extensive cardiac lesions, well described at echocardiography and frequently responsible for severe heart failure. Patients often need surgery, which consists of radical debridement of all the infected tissue with reconstruction using different types of prostheses; therefore, the surgery may be very complex. The goal should be an early diagnosis of endocarditis to avoid spread of the infection to more than one valve, to improve the prognosis for those patients.

In patients with concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair superior to double valve replacement?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in patients with concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is aortic valve replacement with mitral valve plasty (MVP) superior to double valve replacement (DVR) in terms of improved long-term survival? Altogether 156 papers were found using the reported search, of which seven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Out of seven papers, that simultaneously compare these two treatment modalities, three favor MVP combined with aortic valve replacement (AVR) over DVR, two papers advocate the opposite and two failed to find any significant difference in long-term survival, freedom from reoperation and thromboembolic and bleeding complications between these two surgical options. All data presented derive from level 2b evidence. Critical appraisal of these studies is constricted by the large heterogeneity of the patients, diversity in treatment protocols and inherent selection bias. We conclude that currently the available evidence is insufficient to prove that AVR with MVP is superior to DVR in patients with double valve disease.