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

Mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement using a mosaic porcine bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve repair

This study retrospectively evaluated the mid-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using a stented porcine aortic valve bioprosthesis (Mosaic; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with concomitant mitral valve (MV) repair. From 1999 to 2014, 157 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 75 [70-79] years; 47% women) underwent SAVR with concomitant MV repair (SAVR + MV repair), and 1045 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 76 [70-80] years; 54% women) underwent SAVR only at 10 centers in Japan as part of the long-term multicenter Japan Mosaic valve (J-MOVE) study. The 5-year overall survival rate was 81.5% ± 4.1% in the SAVR + MV repair group and 85.1% ± 1.4% in the SAVR only group, and the 8-year overall survival rates were 75.2% ± 5.7% and 78.1% ± 2.1%, respectively. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed no significant difference in the survival rates between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.40; P = 0.576). Among women with mild or moderate mitral regurgitation who were not receiving dialysis, those who underwent SAVR + MV repair, were aged > 75 years, and had a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 30-75% tended to have a lower mortality risk. In conclusion, this subgroup analysis of the J-MOVE cohort showed relevant mid-term outcomes after SAVR + MV repair.

Procedural selection strategy and clinical outcomes in mitral valve surgery with concomitant aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

Introduction

In the context of double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients involving both the aortic and mitral valves, a clinically significant problem has been that no clear criteria or surgical strategies have been reported for the selection of mitral valve plasty (MVP) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) for mitral valve disease management during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to achieve better clinical outcomes. This study investigated valve durability and survival using our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR in elderly patients.

Methods

Eighty-six patients aged > 65 years (mean 75 years) who underwent a double-valve procedure for mitral valve surgery with concomitant SAVR from 2010 to 2022 were reviewed. Our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR for the elderly patients was as follows: MVP was selected for patients in whom mitral valve disease was expected to be controlled with simple surgical procedures (n = 47), otherwise MVR was selected (n = 39).

Results

The hospital mortality rate was 8% (n = 7). The mean follow-up was 4.9 (0-12.3) years. And the 10-year survival rate was 62%. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95%. No mitral valve reintervention was performed during follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation in 86% of cases at 10 years.

Conclusion

In double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients, appropriate selection of the mitral valve procedure with concomitant SAVR provided better early and long-term survival and valve durability. This surgical strategy may be beneficial in elderly patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease.

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.

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.