Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair Restores Life Expectancy

Single-Center Prospective Study of Cross-Clamp vs Balloon Occlusion in Robotic Mitral Surgery

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic aortic cross-clamp and endoaortic balloon occlusion have both been shown to have comparable safety profiles for aortic occlusion. Because most surgeons use only one technique, we sought to compare the outcomes when a homogeneous group of surgeons changed their occlusion technique from aortic cross-clamp to balloon occlusion.

METHODS

We changed our technique from aortic cross-clamp to balloon occlusion in November 2022. This allowed us to conduct a prospective treatment comparison study in the same group of surgeons. Propensity score matching was used to match cases (balloon occlusion) 1:3 to controls (aortic cross-clamp) based on age, sex, body mass index, concomitant maze procedure, and tricuspid valve repair.

RESULTS

Total of 411 patients underwent robotic mitral surgery from 2020 through 2023. Propensity score matching was used to match 56 balloon occlusion patients to 168 aortic cross-clamp patients. The 224 patients were a median age of 65 years (interquartile range, 55.6-70.0 years), and 119 (53%) were men. All valves were successfully repaired. Balloon occlusion had a shorter median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time compared with aortic cross-clamp (84.0 vs 94.5 minutes, P = .006). Median cross-clamp time (64.0 vs 64.0 minutes, P = .483) and total surgery time (5.9 vs 6.1 hours, P = .495) did not differ between groups. There were no in-hospital deaths. There were 5 surgeons who performed various combinations of console and bedside roles. CPB, cross-clamp, and surgery durations were not significantly affected by the different surgeon combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with aortic cross-clamp, balloon occlusion has similar perioperative and early postoperative outcomes. Additionally, it likely introduces a 10-minute reduction in total CPB time.

Mitral valve repair in a regional quality collaborative: Respect or resect?

Objective

Mitral valve repair is the gold standard for treatment of mitral regurgitation, but the optimal technique remains debated. By using a regional collaborative, we sought to determine the change in repair technique over time.

Methods

We identified all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve repair from 2012 to 2022 for degenerative mitral disease. Those with endocarditis, transcatheter repair, or tricuspid intervention were excluded. Continuous variables were analyzed via Wilcoxon rank sum, and categorical variables were analyzed via chi-square testing.

Results

We identified 1653 patients who underwent mitral valve repair, with 875 (59.2%) undergoing a no resection repair. Over the last decade, there was no significant trend in the proportion of repair techniques across the region (P = .96). Those undergoing no resection repairs were more likely to have undergone prior cardiac surgery (5.0% vs 2.2%, P = .002) or minimally invasive approaches (61.4% vs 24.7%, P < .001) with similar predicted risk of mortality (median 0.6% vs 0.6%, P = .75). Intraoperatively, no resection repairs were associated with longer bypass times (140 [117-167] minutes vs 122 [91-159] minutes, P < .001). Operative mortality was similar between both groups (1.1% vs 1.0%, P = .82), as were other postoperative outcomes. Anterior leaflet prolapse (odds ratio, 11.16 [6.34-19.65], P < .001) and minimally invasive approach (odds ratio, 6.40 [5.06-8.10], P < .001) were most predictive of no resection repair.

Conclusions

Despite minor differences in operative times, statewide over the past decade there remains a diverse mix of both classic "resect" and newer "respect" strategies with comparable short-term outcomes and no major timewise trends. These data may suggest that both approaches are equivocal.

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.

Data-driven mortality risk prediction of severe degenerative mitral regurgitation patients undergoing mitral valve surgery

AIMS

The outcomes of mitral valve replacement/repair (MVR) in severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) patients depend on various risk factors. We aimed to develop a risk prediction model for post-MVR mortality in severe degenerative MR patients using machine learning.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive severe degenerative MR patients undergoing MVR were analysed (n = 1521; 70% training/30% test sets). A random survival forest (RSF) model was constructed, with 3-year post-MVR all-cause mortality as the outcome. Partial dependency plots were used to define the thresholds of each risk factor. A simple scoring system (MVR-score) was developed to stratify post-MVR mortality risk. At 3 years following MVR, 90 patients (5.9%) died in the entire cohort (59 and 31 deaths in the training and test sets). The most important predictors of mortality in order of importance were age, haemoglobin, valve replacement, glomerular filtration rate, left atrial dimension, and left ventricular (LV) end-systolic diameter. The final RSF model with these six variables demonstrated high predictive performance in the test set (3-year C-index 0.880, 95% confidence interval 0.834-0.925), with mortality risk increased strongly with left atrial dimension >55 mm, and LV end-systolic diameter >45 mm. MVR-score demonstrated effective risk stratification and had significantly higher predictability compared to the modified Mitral Regurgitation International Database score (3-year C-index 0.803 vs. 0.750, P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

A data-driven machine learning model provided accurate post-MVR mortality prediction in severe degenerative MR patients. The outcome following MVR in severe degenerative MR patients is governed by both clinical and echocardiographic factors.

Long-term outcomes in distinct phenogroups of patients with primary mitral regurgitation undergoing valve surgery

OBJECTIVES

Patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) may be heterogeneous with different risk profiles. We aimed to identify distinct phenogroups of patients with severe primary MR and investigate their long-term prognosis after mitral valve (MV) surgery.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort of patients with severe primary MR undergoing MV surgery (derivation, n=1629; validation, n=692) was analysed. Latent class analysis was used to classify patients into subgroups using 15 variables. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality after MV surgery.

RESULTS

During follow-up (median 6.0 years), 149 patients (9.1%) died in the derivation cohort. In the univariable Cox analysis, age, female, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular (LV) end-systolic dimension/volumes, LV ejection fraction, left atrial dimension and tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity were significant predictors of mortality following MV surgery. Five distinct phenogroups were identified, three younger groups (group 1-3) and two older groups (group 4-5): group 1, least comorbidities; group 2, men with LV enlargement; group 3, predominantly women with rheumatic MR; group 4, low-risk older patients; and group 5, high-risk older patients. Cumulative survival was the lowest in group 5, followed by groups 3 and 4 (5-year survival for groups 1-5: 98.5%, 96.0%, 91.7%, 95.6% and 83.4%; p<0.001). Phenogroups had similar predictive performance compared with the Mitral Regurgitation International Database score in patients with degenerative MR (3-year C-index, 0.763 vs 0.750, p=0.602). These findings were reproduced in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Five phenogroups of patients with severe primary MR with different risk profiles and outcomes were identified. This phenogrouping strategy may improve risk stratification when optimising the timing and type of interventions for severe MR.

Clinical Outcomes of Mitral Valve Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation in Elderly Patients

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzes the safety and outcomes of mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral valve regurgitation in patients 75 years of age or older.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical results of 343 patients aged ≥75 years who underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral valve regurgitation as a primary indication between January 1998 and June 2017.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) age of the patients was 79.4 (76.9, 82.9) years, and 132 (38.5%) patients were women. Concomitant procedures were performed in 123 patients: tricuspid surgery in 68 (19.8%) and a maze procedure or pulmonary vein isolation in 55 (16.0%). Operative mortality was 1.2%. Operative complications included atrial fibrillation in 37.9%, prolonged ventilation in 7.0%, pacemaker implantation in 3.8, renal failure requiring dialysis in 1.5, and troke in 3 (0.9%). Median follow-up was 7.4 years (IQR, 3.5-14.1 years). The cumulative incidence rates of mitral valve reoperation were 2.2%, 3.2%, and 3.2% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years were 95%, 83%, and 51%, respectively. Older age, smoking, and over and under weight were associated with increased risk of mortality, while higher left ventricular ejection fraction and hypertension were associated with reduced risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral valve repair in elderly patients can be accomplished with low operative mortality and complications. Mitral valve repair in the elderly remains the preferred treatment for degenerative mitral regurgitation.

Surgical mitral valve repair technique considerations based on the available evidence

Mitral valve regurgitation is the second most common valve disease in the western world. Surgery is currently the best tool for generating a long-lasting elimination of mitral valve regurgitation. However, the mitral valve apparatus is a complex anatomical and functional structure, and repair results and durability show substantial heterogeneity. This is not only due to differences in the underlying mitral valve regurgitation pathophysiology but also due to differences in repair techniques. Repair philosophies differ substantially from one surgeon to the other, and consensus for the technically best repair strategy has not been reached yet. We had previously addressed this topic by suggesting that ring sizing is "voodoo". We now review the available evidence regarding the various repair techniques described for structural and functional mitral valve regurgitation. Herein, we illustrate that for structural mitral valve regurgitation, resuspension of prolapsing valve segments or torn chordae with polytetrafluoroethylene sutures and annuloplasty can generate the most durable results paired with the best achievable hemodynamics. For functional mitral valve regurgitation, the evidence suggests that annuloplasty alone is insufficient in most cases to generate durable results, and additional subvalvular strategies are associated with improved durability and possibly improved clinical outcomes. This review addresses current strategies but also implausibilities in mitral valve repair and informs the mitral valve surgeon about the current evidence. We believe that this information may help improve outcomes in mitral valve repair as the heterogeneity of mitral valve regurgitation pathophysiology does not allow a one-size-fits-all concept.

Racial Disparities in Mitral Valve Surgery: A Statewide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Racial disparities in health care have come to the forefront. We hypothesized that Black race was associated with worse preoperative risk, lower repair rates, and worse outcomes among patients who underwent mitral valve surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent mitral valve repair or replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting from 2011 to 2020 in a statewide collaborative database were stratified into 3 racial groups, White, Black, and other. Preoperative characteristics, procedure type, and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 9074 mitral valve operations were performed at 33 centers (Black 1009 [11.1%], White 7862 [86.6%]). Preoperative combined Society of Thoracic Surgeons morbidity and mortality was higher for Black patients (Black 32%, White 22%, other 23%, [P < .001]) because of a greater proportion of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic lung disease. White patients were more likely to undergo mitral repair (White 66%, Black 53.3%, other 57%; P < .001). Operative mortality was similar across racial groups (White 3.7%, Black 4.6%, other 4.5%; P = .36). After adjusting for preoperative factors, mitral etiology, and hospitals, race was not associated with mitral valve repair, complications, or mortality, but Black patients had higher odds of extended care facility utilization and readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no difference in the odds of repair or operative mortality across races after accounting for risk and etiology. However, Black patients were more likely to be readmitted after discharge. These findings support a greater focus on reducing disparities in mitral valve surgery.

Rheumatic mitral valve repair or replacement in the valve-in-valve era

OBJECTIVE

For degenerative mitral disease, repair is superior to replacement; however, the best operative strategy for rheumatic mitral disease remains unclear. We evaluated the association between decision-making in choosing repair versus replacement and outcomes across 2 decades of rheumatic mitral surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated, first-time rheumatic mitral surgery were identified. Era 1 (1997-2008) and Era 2 (2009-2018) were distinguished by intraoperative assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification (Era 2) in deciding between mitral repair versus replacement. Primary outcome was a composite of death, reoperation, and severe valve dysfunction.

RESULTS

Among 180 patients, age was 59 ± 14 years, and ejection fraction was 58% ± 10%. A higher proportion in Era 1 (n = 56) compared with Era 2 (n = 124) had preoperative atrial fibrillation (68% vs 46%; P = .006); the groups were otherwise similar. Primary indication was mitral stenosis in 69% (124 out of 180; pure = 35, mixed = 89) and did not differ by era (P = .67). During Era 1, 70% (39 out of 56) underwent repair, compared with 33% (41 out of 124) during Era 2 (P < .001). Freedom from death, reoperation, or severe valve dysfunction at 5 years was higher in Era 2 (72% ± 9%) than Era 1 (54% ± 13%; P = .04). Five-year survival was higher in Era 2 than Era 1, but did not differ between repair versus replacement. Five-year cumulative incidence of reoperation with death as a competing risk did not differ by era, but was higher after repair than replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification to determine mitral repair or replacement was associated with improved outcomes. This decision-making strategy may alter the threshold for rheumatic mitral replacement in the current valve-in-valve era.

Anterior versus posterior leaflet mitral valve repair: A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mitral valve repair is superior to replacement for degenerative disease, but long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior leaflet repair remain poorly defined. We propensity matched anterior and posterior repairs to compare long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing first-time degenerative mitral repair between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural residual mitral regurgitation and reoperation. From 1025 patients, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, yielding 309 anterior (isolated anterior = 85, bileaflet = 224) and 309 isolated posterior repairs.

RESULTS

Age was 58 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 57% ± 10%, and matched groups were well balanced. Anterior repairs had longer bypass (122 ± 53 vs 109 ± 43 minutes, P = .001) and crossclamp (94 ± 44 vs 85 ± 62 minutes, P = .033) times. Mean residual mitral regurgitation grade was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.65) for anterior repair and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) for posterior repair (P = .31). Overall, 92% (569/618) of matched patients had no residual mitral regurgitation, with no differences in mitral regurgitation grade between groups (P = .77). Survival did not differ between anterior (10 years: 72% ± 7%; 15 years: 63% ± 7%) and posterior (10 years: 74% ± 7%; 15 years: 60% ± 8%) groups (log-rank P = .93). Linearized incidence of reoperation was 0.62% per patient-year, including 0.74% for anterior and 0.48% for posterior repairs. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 15 years was 7.5% after anterior repair and 4.9% after posterior repair (Gray's test P = .26).

CONCLUSIONS

No long-term survival or reoperation difference was found between posterior and anterior repair. On the basis of these findings, surgeons at centers of excellence should aim for repair of both anterior and posterior leaflet pathology with the same decision-making threshold over valve replacement for degenerative mitral disease.

Antithrombotic Treatment After Surgical and Transcatheter Heart Valve Repair and Replacement

New antithrombotic drugs have been developed, new valve types have been designed and minimally invasive transcatheter techniques have emerged, making the choice of antithrombotic therapy after surgical or transcatheter heart valve repair and replacement increasingly complex. Moreover, due to a lack of large randomized controlled trials many recommendations for antithrombotic therapy are based on expert opinion, reflected by divergent recommendations in current guidelines. Therefore, decision-making in clinical practice regarding antithrombotic therapy for prosthetic heart valves is difficult, potentially resulting in sub-optimal patient treatment. This article compares the 2017 ESC/EACTS and 2020 ACC/AHA guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease and summarizes the available evidence. Finally, we established a convenient consensus on antithrombotic therapy after valve interventions based on over 800 annual cases of surgical and transcatheter heart valve repair and replacement and a multidisciplinary team discussion between the department of cardiovascular diseases and cardiac surgery of the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Patient and Surgeon Predictors of Mitral and Tricuspid Valve Repair for Infective Endocarditis

Mitral repair (MVr) is superior to replacement for degenerative disease; however, its benefit is less established for endocarditis. We report outcomes of repair or replacement for mitral/tricuspid endocarditis and identify predictors of MVr. Patients undergoing first-time surgery for mitral (n = 260) or tricuspid (n = 71) endocarditis between 1992 to 2018 were identified. Patients with aortic endocarditis were excluded. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcome was MVr. Patients were stratified into active and treated endocarditis separately for mitral and tricuspid groups. Predictors of MVr were assessed through multivariable logistic regression and adjusted likelihood of MVr through marginal effects estimates. A mitral specialist was defined by performing ≥25 annual degenerative MVr. Among 331 patients, 70% (181/260) of those with mitral valve endocarditis and 52% (37/71) of those with tricuspid endocarditis underwent repair. The MVr group compared with replacement had a higher proportion of elective acuity and less diabetes, hypertension, active endocarditis, cardiogenic shock, and dialysis. Estimated 5-year survival did not differ between repair versus replacement for active mitral (68 ± 14% vs 60 ± 14%, P = 0.34) or tricuspid endocarditis (60 ± 17% vs 61 ± 19%, P = 0.67), but was superior after repair for treated mitral endocarditis (86 ± 7% vs 51 ± 24%, P = 0.014). Independent predictors of mortality included dialysis for active and treated mitral endocarditis, and mitral replacement (vs MVr) for treated mitral endocarditis. The likelihood of MVr was 82 ± 5% for mitral specialists and 47 ± 9% for non-specialists (P < 0.001). MVr for endocarditis should be pursued, if feasible. Importantly, achieving MVr was driven not only by patient factors, but also surgeon experience.

PASCAL mitral valve repair system versus MitraClip: comparison of transcatheter edge-to-edge strategies in complex primary mitral regurgitation

Background

The PASCAL system is a novel device for edge-to-edge treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the PASCAL to the MitraClip system in a highly selected group of patients with complex primary mitral regurgitation (PMR) defined as effective regurgitant orifice area (MR-EROA) ≥ 0.40 cm², large flail gap (≥ 5 mm) or width (≥ 7 mm) or Barlow’s disease.

Methods

38 patients with complex PMR undergoing mitral intervention using PASCAL (n = 22) or MitraClip (n = 16) were enrolled. Primary efficacy endpoints were procedural success and degree of residual MR at discharge. The rate of major adverse events (MAE) according to the Mitral Valve Academic Consortium (MVARC) criteria was chosen as the primary safety endpoint.

Results

Patient collectives did not differ relevantly regarding pertinent baseline parameters. Patients` median age was 83.0 [77.5–85.3] years (PASCAL) and 82.5 [76.5–86.5] years (MitraClip). MR-EROA at baseline was 0.70 [0.68–0.83] cm² (PASCAL) and 0.70 [0.50–0.90] cm² (MitraClip), respectively. 3D-echocardiographic morphometry of the mitral valve apparatus revealed no relevant differences between groups. Procedural success was achieved in 95.5% (PASCAL) and 87.5% (MitraClip), respectively. In 86.4% of the patients a residual MR grade ≤ 1 + was achieved with PASCAL whereas reduction to MR grade ≤ 1 + with MitraClip was achieved in 62.5%. Neither procedure time number of implanted devices, nor transmitral gradient differed significantly. No periprocedural MAE according to MVARC occured.

Conclusion

In this highly selected patient group with complex PMR both systems exhibited equal procedural safety. MitraClip and PASCAL reduced qualitative and semi-quantitative parameters of MR to an at least comparable extent.

Graphic abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-021-01845-8.

Advances in Mitral Valve Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation: Philosophy, Technical Details, and Long-Term Results

Degenerative mitral valve disease represents the most common cause of mitral regurgitation in industrialized countries. When left untreated, patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation show a poor clinical outcome. Conversely, a timely and appropriate correction provides a restored life expectancy and a good quality of life. Therefore, in this scenario, surgical mitral valve repair represents the gold standard of treatment. This review aims to analyze the indications, timing, and contemporary surgical techniques of mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation. Moreover, the value of heart team approach and centers of excellence for mitral valve repair are also deeply discussed.

Current status of the treatment of degenerative mitral valve regurgitation

Degenerative mitral valve disease (myxomatous degeneration or fibroelastic deficiency) is the most common indication for surgical referral to treat mitral regurgitation. Mitral valve repair is the procedure of choice whenever feasible and when the results are expected to be durable. Posterior leaflet prolapse is the commonest lesion, found in up to two-thirds of patients. It is the easiest to repair, particularly when limited to one segment. In these cases, rates of repairability and procedural success approach 100%, and there is now ample evidence that the immediate and long-term results are better than those of valve replacement. Notably, minimally invasive valvular procedures, surgical or interventional, have attracted increasing interest in the last decade. When performed by experienced groups, mitral valve repair is unrivaled irrespective of the severity of lesions, from simple to complex, which leaflets are involved, and the type of degenerative involvement (myxomatous or fibroelastic). Its results should be viewed as the benchmark for other present and future technologies. By contrast, percutaneous mitral valve repair is still in its infancy and its results so far fall short of those of surgical repair. Nevertheless, continued investment in transcatheter procedures is of great importance to enable development and improved accessibility, particularly for patients who are considered unsuitable for surgery. In this review, we analyze the current status of management of degenerative mitral valve disease, discussing mitral valve anatomy and pathology, indications for intervention, and current surgical and transcatheter mitral valve procedures and results.

Flexible or rigid ring in mitral annuloplasty-do the results differ?

Introduction

Mitral valve annuloplasty has evolved over the decades since its introduction and Carpentier played a major role in developing the technique. Mitral valve repair is preferred over replacement for severe primary mitral regurgitation, as it restores normal life expectancy when successful and does not require lifelong anticoagulation. There is an ongoing debate regarding the choice of ring for mitral valve annuloplasty-rigid or flexible. At present, the choice of ring is based on the availability of the ring and left to the surgeon's discretion.

Methodology

This is a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary referral centre.

Aim

To compare the outcomes of mitral valve repair annuloplasty with flexible and rigid rings. The hospital records of 112 patients who underwent mitral valve annuloplasty between January 2010 and December 2014 at our hospital were studied. All patients were followed up for 5 years. The rigid and flexible groups were compared for left ventricular (LV) size regression and the presence of mitral regurgitation (MR).

Results

One hundred and eight patients had no progression of mitral regurgitation at 5-year follow-up, compared with the immediate postoperative period. The choice of the ring (rigid and flexible) did not affect the recurrence of mitral regurgitation. At 5-year follow-up, three patients (2 patients in the rigid group and 1 patient in the flexible group) had 3+ MR. One of the two patients in the rigid group had poor functional status and underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR). The other two patients (one in the rigid group and one in the flexible group) with 3+ MR had class II NYHA symptoms and were on medical follow-up. The left ventricular internal diameter diastolic (LVIDD) measured 59.1 mm in the flexible ring group and 56.76 mm in the rigid group preoperatively and these values reduced to 48.4 mm and 47.3 mm, at 5-year follow-up respectively. The mean left ventricular internal diameter systolic (LVIDS) size regression at 5 years was 4.5 ± 6.09 mm in the flexible ring group and 3.2 ± 7.17 mm in the rigid ring group and the difference is not statistically significant (p value 0.314). The mean LVIDD size regression at 5 years was 10.62 ± 6.57 mm in the flexible ring group and 9.38 ± 9.29 mm in the rigid ring group and the difference is not statistically significant (p value 0.408).

Conclusion

The choice of rigid or flexible ring did not have a marked difference on the outcome of mitral valve annuloplasty at midterm follow-up.

Functional tricuspid regurgitation: indications, techniques, and outcomes

Functional tricuspid regurgitation (TR) results from asymmetric dilation of the tricuspid valve annulus. This often occurs due to right ventricular enlargement and dysfunction as a consequence of myocardial or valvular abnormalities of the left heart. Even mild TR at the time of left-sided valvular surgery may worsen postoperatively, which carries poor prognostic implications. In spite of data revealing poor outcomes associated with residual TR, surgery for functional TR remains underutilized. Surgical repair techniques for TR include placement of a rigid or semi-rigid tricuspid annular ring, which has been shown to provide superior longevity compared with suture and flexible band repair techniques. Additionally, emerging percutaneous annuloplasty techniques to correct functional TR can expand interventional treatment options to patients who would otherwise carry prohibitive operative risk.

Economic Analysis and Long-term Follow-up of Distant Referral for Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair

BACKGROUND

Despite the superiority of mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement for degenerative disease, repair rates vary widely across centers. Traveling to a mitral reference center (MRC) is 1 way to increase the odds of MVr. This study assessed the economic value (quality/cost) and long-term outcomes of distant referral to an MRC.

METHODS

Among 746 mitral surgery patients between January 2011 and June 2013, low-risk patients with an ejection fraction greater than 40% undergoing isolated degenerative MVr were identified and included 26 out-of-state (DISTANT) and 104 in-state patients (LOCAL). Short- and long-term outcomes and institutional financial data (including travel expenses) were used to compare groups. National average and MRC-specific MVr rates, clinical outcomes, and marginal value of quality-adjusted life-years collected from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and Medicare estimates were used to perform a nationally representative cost-benefit analysis for distant referral.

RESULTS

Age, ejection fraction, operative time, blood transfusions, and annuloplasty ring size did not differ between groups. Median charges were $76,022 for LOCAL and $74,171 for DISTANT (P = .35), whereas median payments (including travel expenses) were $57,795 for LOCAL and $58,477 for DISTANT (P = .70). Short- and long-term outcomes were similar between groups and median follow-up was 7.1 years. Estimated 5-year survival was 97% (96% for LOCAL and 100% for DISTANT; P = .24). Cost-benefit analysis showed a net benefit through distant referral to an MRC ranging from $436 to $6078 to the payer and $22,163 to $30,067 to the patient, combining for an estimated $22,599 to $32,528 societal benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that distant referral to an MRC is achievable and reasonable.