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

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.

Mitral Repair vs Replacement for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation in Patients Aged ≥65 Years

BACKGROUND

The benefits of mitral valve repair vs replacement are well documented. However, survival benefits in the elderly population are more controversial. In this novel lifetime analysis, we hypothesize that survival benefits for valve repair vs replacement in the elderly are sustained throughout the patient's lifetime.

METHODS

From January 1985 through December 2005, 663 patients, aged ≥65 years with myxomatous degenerative mitral valve disease underwent primary isolated mitral valve repair (n = 434) or replacement (n = 229). Propensity score matching was used to balance variables potentially related to outcome.

RESULTS

Follow-up was complete in 99.1% of mitral repair and 99.6% of mitral replacement patients. In matched patients, perioperative mortality was 3.9% (9 of 229) for repair and 10.9% (25 of 229) for replacement (P = .004). Survival estimates (95% confidence limits) from 29-year follow-up for matched patients were 54.6% (48.0%, 61.1%) and 11.0% (6.8%, 15.2%) at 10 years and 20 years for repair patients, and 34.2% (27.7%, 40.7%) and 3.7% (1%, 6.4%) for replacement patients, respectively. Median survival (95% confidence limits) was 11.3 years (9.6, 12.2 years) for repair patients compared with 6.9 years (6.3, 8.0 years) for replacement patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that although the elderly population is prone to multiple comorbidities, survival benefits of isolated mitral valve repair vs replacement are sustained throughout the patient's lifetime.

Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement in The Elderly

The disadvantages of mitral valve replacement with a bioprosthesis in the long-term may not play an important role if the shorter life expectancy of older patients is taken into account. This study aims to evaluate whether mitral valve replacement in the elderly is associated with similar outcome compared to repair in the short- and long-term. All patients aged 70 years and older undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery were studied retrospectively. Primary outcome was 30-day complication rate, secondary outcome was long-term survival and freedom from re-operation. 223 Patients underwent surgery (124 replacement and 99 repair) with a mean age of 76.4 ± 4.2 years. 30-Day complication rate (replacement 73.4% versus repair 67.7%; p=.433), 30-day mortality (replacement 4.0% versus repair 1.0%; p=.332) and 30-day stroke rate (replacement 0.0% versus repair 1.0%; p=.910) were similar in both groups. Multivariable cox regression revealed higher age, diabetes and left ventricular dysfunction as predictors for reduced long-term survival, while a valve replacement was no predictor for reduced survival. Sub analysis of patients with degenerative disease showed no difference in long-term survival after propensity weighting (HR 1.4; 95%CI 0.84 - 2.50; p=.282). The current study reveals that mitral valve repair and replacement in the elderly can be achieved with good short- and long-term results. Long-term survival was dependent on patient related risk factors and not on the type of operation (replacement versus repair).

Midterm outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement in elderly patients: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Current literature reports better short-term mortality rates in mitral valve repair over replacement in elderly patients. However, valve durability, postoperative complications, and reintervention rates in these cohorts remain understudied. As such, we aimed to investigate 5-year rates of mortality and reoperation after initial mitral repair or replacement in elderly patients.

METHODS

Using the TriNetX Research Network database, we identified patients aged ≥70 who underwent mitral valve repair or replacement for nonrheumatic mitral insufficiency between January 2010 and December 2020. We 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts for 33 covariates including demographics, comorbidities, and surgical history. After matching, we compared 5-year mortality and reoperation rates between cohorts using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

We compared 823 mitral valve repair patients to a propensity score-matched cohort of 823 mitral valve replacement patients over a 5-year follow-up period. All variables of interest were adequately matched. Cumulative 5-year mortality rate was significantly lower among mitral valve repair patients (17.0% vs. 24.9%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.51-0.87, p < 0.0025). Reoperation rates at 5-year did not differ (2.6% vs. 2,1%; HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.67-2.68, p = 0.401).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed lower 5-year mortality rates and nonsignificantly different reoperation rates among elderly patients with mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair compared to replacement. Our data support the current understanding that mitral valve repair should be considered as the first treatment line whenever possible, even in elderly patients.

Early mortality and neurologic outcomes following mitral valve surgery in the very elderly

OBJECTIVES

Valve repair is the gold standard for treatment of degenerative mitral valve disease. As the population ages, patients undergoing valve degeneration and therefore considered for mitral valve surgery will naturally be getting older. We sought to evaluate whether mitral repair retained a survival advantage over replacement in patients ≥80 years old.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data acquired from the United Kingdom National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit for the outcomes of in-hospital mortality and postoperative cerebrovascular event (CVA). Individual multivariable logistic regression models were created to investigate adjusted associations between these outcomes and type of mitral valve operation, repair or replacement. Additionally, associations between the individual model parameters and in-hospital mortality and CVA were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1140 patients underwent mitral repair (66.4%, median age 82.3), and 577 patients underwent mitral replacement (33.6%, median age 82.1). The overall age range was 80-92. The incidence of in-hospital mortality favored the repair group (4.4% vs. 8.3%, p = .001). Multivariable logistic regression modeling demonstrated an increased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality for mitral valve replacement (MVR) (odd ratio [OR]: 2.01, 1.15-3.50, p = .01). The only other parameter associated with an increased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality was postoperative dialysis (OR: 14.2, 7.67-26.5, p < .001). There was not a demonstrated association between MVR and perioperative CVA (OR: 1.11, 0.49-2.4, p = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients ≥80 years old, mitral valve repair (MVr) was shown to be associated with a decreased adjusted odds of mortality, with a null association with CVA. These results suggest that, if feasible, MVr should remain the preferred management strategy, even in the very elderly.

Mortality and morbidity of surgical and transcatheter mitral valve repair in octogenarians: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Valvular heart disease (VHD) is a prominent problem in healthcare today with mitral regurgitation (MR) being the leading cause of VHD in the elderly population. While mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery is one of the only options for the end-stage disease, octogenarians are often denied MVr due to concerns with operative mortality and postoperative morbidity. To provide information on this underrepresented group of surgical patients, a systematic approach was taken to review the mortality and morbidity rates of octogenarians who received MVr.

METHODS

Pubmed and Medline were searched for articles containing outcomes of octogenarians receiving surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) or transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) published after 2000. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria for a total of 7968 patients included in the analysis using Microsoft Excel, Version 2105.

RESULTS

Short-term mortality rates for SMVr and TMVr were 2.6% and 1.4% for in-hospital, and 7.8% and 3.3% for 30 days, respectively. The average incidence of stroke, acute kidney injury, infection, and major bleeding for SMVr were 3.2%, 11.2%, 7.7%, and 24%, respectively, and 0.3%, 6.7%, 2.7%, and 7.9% for TMVr, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Octogenarians receiving SMVr or TMVr experienced similar rates of short-term mortality and morbidity as younger populations, and when considering life expectancy, midterm mortality was also similar. With these results, denying octogenarians MVr operations based on age alone should be reconsidered. Depending on risk factors and comorbidities, either SMVr or TMVr is a viable and relatively safe option for octogenarians with severe MR.

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.

A new simplified technique for artificial chordae implantation in mitral valve repair with its early results

Background

Many techniques in mitral valve repair (MVR) have been reported with successful long-term results. The aim of this study is to present our simplified technique in artificial chordae replacement for MVR, and reporting its short-term outcomes.

Methods

We present a prospective single-surgeon experience. A new simplified artificial chordae implantation technique has been used to repair mitral valves. Postoperative echocardiography at 0, 6, then every 12 months is used to control the results. Endpoints involved freedom from mitral regurgitation (MR), reoperation and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

Between 01/2016 and 01/2018, 57 consecutive patients undergo MVR using this technique are evaluated. Mean age was 63.6±10.1 years and 68.4% were male. Mitral valve pathology was mainly degenerative (52, 91.2%) or healed endocarditis (5, 8.8%). Besides chordae replacement (3.6±1.1 per patient), annuloplasty was used in all patients to correct annulus dilation and stabilize the repair. Mean cross-clamping time was 53±13.4 minutes in isolated MVR and 69.4±31.1 minutes in concomitant procedures. Postoperative outcomes reported two mortalities. Discharge echocardiography reported mild MR in 4 patients and the rest of patients had non-to trace regurgitation. Follow-up results within a mean of 19.3±8.5 months reported no significant MR or need for reoperation and three more (non-valve related) mortalities.

Conclusions

Our simplified technique allows to reduce the number of used chordae and re-correction if needed, which consequently reduces cross-clamping and bypass time especially in endoscopic MVR. Good intraoperative and short-term results are reported. These results are still under investigation to prove long-term stability of the repair.

Heart valve disease in elderly

The incidence of heart valve disease increases significantly with age. Degenerative abnormalities associated with severe aortic stenosis and mitral and tricuspid regurgitation are found in not less than 10% of the population aged ≥ 75 years. Surgical treatment has been considered for years to be the treatment of choice. However, it was not uncommonly associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality due to frequent comorbidities and overall frailty conditions of these patients. Conventional risk scores such as Society of Thoracic Surgeons and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation may underestimate the risk of surgery in elderly patients, leading to inappropriate surgical indication. On the other hand, at least 30% of patients with severe conditions are left untreated due to prohibitive surgical risk. Interventional procedures, which are in continuous development, may be actually considered for high risk patients and, as recent results suggest, also for intermediate risk patients.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation Across All Ages

Although current guidelines recommend mitral valve repair (MVr) over mitral valve replacement (MVR) for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), it is unclear if it should be also recommended in elderly patients with limited life expectancy. This study was conducted to compare the results of MVr with those of MVR to determine the optimal treatment option for patients with degenerative MR, particularly according to the patient's age. A literature search of 5 electronic databases was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes included early mortality and freedom from reoperation. A metaregression analysis and subgroup analysis were performed according to the mean age of the study population. Twelve retrospective studies (2,950 and 1,252 patients in the MVr and MVR groups, respectively) were selected. Pooled analyses demonstrated that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the MVR group than in the MVr group both in all studies and in studies presenting adjusted results (hazard ratio[95% confidence interval] = 1.57[1.39 to 1.77] and 1.53[1.34 to 1.74], respectively). This benefit was similar across all ages when the metaregression analysis and the subgroup analysis were performed (p = 0.879 and 0.123, respectively). Early mortality and risk of reoperation were also higher in the MVR group than in the MVr group (risk ratio[95% confidence interval] = 4.51[3.12 to 6.51] and hazard ratio[95% confidence interval] = 1.47[1.09 to 1.98], respectively). In conclusion, this study indicates that MVr is beneficial compared with MVR in patients with degenerative MR regardless of patients' age in terms of all-cause mortality.

Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Mitral Valve Regurgitation in the Elderly: Comparison of Early and Long-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

It is unclear whether mitral valve (MV) repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) provides the same advantages in the elderly that it does in the general population.

Methods

From 1994 to 2016, 188 elderly patients (mean age, 68.3±5.50 years) underwent MV repair (n=153) or MV replacement (n=35) for primary degenerative MR. Early and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

Before PSM, there was a significant difference in operative mortality (p=0.011). Overall survival and freedom from cardiac-related death (CRD) at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly higher in patients who underwent MV repair (p=0.039 and p=0.007, respectively). In the multivariable analysis, MV replacement was an independent risk factor of CRD. After PSM, operative mortality was not significantly lower in patients who underwent MV repair (p=0.125). Overall survival and freedom from CRD at 5, 10, and 15 years showed no significant difference between the 2 groups in the PSM cohort (p=0.207, p=0.47, respectively). There was no significant difference in freedom from reoperation before or after PSM (p=0.963 and p=0.575, respectively).

Conclusion

MV repair for primary degenerative MR might be a valid option in the elderly population if successful repair is possible.