Repair or Replacement for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Results From Polish National Registry

Long-Term Outcomes of Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement in Patients with Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Retrospective Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical management of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR)-mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR)-remains controversial, with limited evidence on long-term outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of MVr and MVR in patients with IMR, focusing on survival and recurrence of mitral regurgitation. Additionally, survival was compared based on preoperative characteristics.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted at a tertiary referral center and included 759 patients who underwent surgery for IMR between 2009 and 2021. Propensity score matching identified 140 matched pairs. The outcomes assessed included hospital mortality, long-term survival, recurrence of mitral regurgitation, mitral valve reintervention rates, and echocardiographic changes over time.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort, no significant differences were observed in hospital mortality (10% for MVr vs. 10.7% for MVR, p > 0.99) or long-term survival (p = 0.534). However, MVr was associated with a higher rate of recurrent moderate or higher mitral regurgitation (29.04% vs. 10.37%, p < 0.001) compared to MVR. The mitral valve reintervention rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Echocardiographic follow-up revealed significant improvements in left ventricular function and dimensions, with no significant differences between the groups. A subgroup analysis revealed no difference in survival according to the age, gender, ejection fraction, EuroSCORE category, or right ventricular function between the MVr and MVR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MVr and MVR for IMR yielded comparable survival rates, but MVr was associated with a higher risk of recurrent MR. The efficacy of both surgical approaches across diverse patient populations was comparable, reinforcing the need for individualized decision-making based on other clinical and anatomical considerations.

Mitral valve replacement versus repair for severe mitral regurgitation in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Objective

This study compares early and long-term outcomes following mitral valve (MV) repair and replacement in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods

Patients with primary or secondary MR and LVEF <50% who underwent MV replacement or repair (with/without atrial septal defect closure and/or atrial fibrillation ablation) between 2005 and 2017 at our center were retrospectively analyzed using unadjusted and propensity score matching techniques (42 pairs).

Results

A total of 356 patients with either primary (n = 162 [45.5%]) or secondary MR (n = 194 [54.5%]) and LVEF <50% underwent MV repair (n = 293 [82.3%]) or replacement (n = 63 [17.7%]) during the study period. In-hospital mortality was 0.3% (repair) and 1.6% (replacement) in the unmatched cohort (P = .32); there were no in-hospital deaths after matching. Estimated survival was 72.8% (repair) versus 50.1% (replacement) at 8 years in the unmatched (P < .001), and 64.3% (repair) versus 50.7% (replacement) in the matched groups (P = .028). Eight-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 7.0% and 11.6% in unmatched (P = .28), and 9.9% and 12.7% in matched (P = .69) repair and replacement groups, respectively. Markedly reduced LVEF (<40%) was among the independent predictors of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = .002). In secondary MR, MV repair showed an 8-year survival benefit over replacement (65.1% vs 44.6%; P = .002), with no difference in reoperation rate (11.6% [repair] vs 17.0% [replacement]; P = .11).

Conclusions

MV repair performed in primary or secondary MR and reduced LVEF provides superior long-term results compared with replacement. Severe LV dysfunction is a significant predictor of reduced survival following MV surgery.

Long-term outcomes comparison of mitral valve repair or replacement for secondary mitral valve regurgitation. An updated systematic review and reconstructed time-to-event study-level meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The ideal surgical intervention for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR), a disease of the left ventricle not the mitral valve itself, is still debated. We performed an updated systematic review and study-level meta-analysis investigating mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) for adult patients with SMR, with or without coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing MVr versus MVR. Randomized trial or observational studies were considered eligible. Primary endpoint was long-term mortality for any cause. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression. Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Sensitivity analyses included meta-regression and separate sub-analysis. A random effects model was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (MVr=3,727 and MVR=2,839) were included. One study was a randomized trial, and 19 studies were adjusted. The mean weighted follow-up was 3.7±2.8 years. MVR was associated with significative greater late mortality (HR=1.26; 95 % CI, 1.14-1.39; P<0.0001) at 10-year follow-up. There was a time-varying trend showing an increased risk of mortality in the first 2 years after MVR (HR=1.38; 95 % CI, 1.21-1.56; P<0.0001), after which this difference dissipated (HR=0.94; 95 % CI, 0.81-1.09; P=0.41). Separate sub-analyses showed comparable long-term mortality in patients with concomitant coronary surgery ≥90 %, left ventricle ejection fraction ≤40 %, and sub-valvular apparatus preservation rate of 100 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to repair, MVR is associated with higher probability of mortality in the first 2 years following surgery, after which the two procedures showed comparable late mortality rate.

Anatomic, stage-based repair of secondary mitral valve disease

OBJECTIVE

Intervention for repair of secondary mitral valve disease is frequently associated with recurrent regurgitation. We sought to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support inclusion of anatomic indices of leaflet dysfunction in the management of secondary mitral valve disease.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published reports comparing anatomic indices of leaflet dysfunction with the complexity of valve repair and the outcome from intervention. Patients were stratified by the severity of leaflet dysfunction. A secondary analysis was performed comparing outcomes when procedural complexity was optimally matched to severity of leaflet dysfunction and when intervention was not matched to dysfunction.

RESULTS

We identified 6864 publications, of which 65 met inclusion criteria. An association between the severity of leaflet dysfunction and the procedural complexity was highly predictive of satisfactory freedom from recurrent regurgitation. Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on stratification of leaflet dysfunction. Satisfactory results were achieved in 93.7% of patients in whom repair complexity was appropriately matched to severity of leaflet dysfunction and in 68.8% in whom repair was not matched to dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.148; 95% confidence interval, 0.119-0.184; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with secondary mitral valve disease, satisfactory outcome from valve repair improves when procedural complexity is matched to anatomic indices of leaflet dysfunction. Anatomic indices of leaflet dysfunction should be considered when planning interventions for secondary mitral regurgitation. Routine inclusion of anatomic indices in trial design and reporting should facilitate comparison of results and strengthen guidelines. There are sufficient data to support anatomic staging of secondary mitral valve disease.

Restrictive annuloplasty or replacement on reverse remodeling for nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

For patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM), the indications for and results of mitral surgery remain controversial. We reviewed a strategy of mitral repair and replacement for clinically relevant secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with NIDCM.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 65 patients with advanced NIDCM (LVEF < 40%) who underwent mitral surgery. Of them, 47 (72%) underwent mitral annuloplasty and 18 (28%) replacement for secondary MR. The primary endpoint was postoperative reduction in indexed LV end-systolic volume (LVESVI).

RESULTS

At baseline, there was no intergroup difference in LVESVI (123 ± 47 vs. 147 ± 37 ml/m2, P = 0.055), LVEF (27 ± 8% vs. 25 ± 6%, P = 0.41), incidence of severe MR (57% (27/47) vs. 72% (13/18), P = 0.40), or EuroSCORE II score (6.2% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.90). At 6 months, the annuloplasty group reduced LVESVI to a greater degree than the replacement group (P < 0.001), yielding significantly smaller postoperative LVESVI (96 ± 59 vs. 154 ± 61 ml/m2, P < 0.001) and better LVEF (P < 0.001). The rates of moderate/severe recurrent MR were 17% (8/47) and 0%, respectively. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that mitral annuloplasty (OR 6.10, 95% CI 1.14-32.8, P = 0.035) was significantly associated with postoperative LV reverse remodeling. Cumulative survival was not different between the groups (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NIDCM, mitral annuloplasty reduced LV volume to a greater degree than did mitral replacement. These findings may assist with surgical options for secondary MR associated with NIDCM.

Mitral Valve Repair vs. Replacement by Different Etiologies - A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

When mitral valve (MV) surgery is indicated, repair is preferred over replacement; however, this preference is not supported by evidence from clinical trials. Furthermore, the benefits of MV repair may not be universal for all etiologies of MV disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study identified a total of 18,428 patients who underwent MV repair (n=4,817) or MV replacement (n=13,611) during 2001-2018 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. These patients were classified into 4 etiologies: infective endocarditis (IE, n=2,678), rheumatic heart disease (RHD, n=4,524), ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR, n=3,893), and degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR, n=7,333). After propensity matching, all-cause mortality during follow-up was lower among patients receiving MV repair than among patients receiving MV replacement in the IE, IMR, and DMR groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.93; HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.73-0.92; and HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.64-0.84, respectively). However, in the RHD group, the MV reoperation rate was higher after MV repair than after MV replacement (subdistribution HR=1.91, 95% CI: 1.02-3.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with MV replacement, MV repair was associated with a lower late mortality in patients with IE, IMR, and DMR, and a higher risk of reoperation in patients with RHD.

Trends in Isolated Mitral Valve Repair or Replacement Surgery in Australia: A Statewide Cohort Linkage Study

BACKGROUND

Global trends in mitral valve surgery (MVSx) suggest increasing repair compared with replacement, especially in the United States and European countries. The relative use, and outcomes of, MV repair and replacement in Australia are unknown.

METHODS

New South Wales residents who underwent isolated MVSx between 2001 and 2017 were identified from the Admitted-Patient-Data-Collection database. Mortality outcomes were tracked to 31 Dec 2018 and adjusted based on age, sex, urgency of operation, and comorbidity status.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 5,693 patients: 2020 (35%) underwent repair (MVr), 1,656 (29%) underwent mechanical replacement (mech.MVR), and 2017 (35%) underwent bioprosthetic replacement (bio.MVR). Respective median ages [interquartile range] were 67 yo [59-75 yo], 64 yo [55-71 yo], and 75 yo [68-80 yo] (p<0.001 across groups). Between 2001 and 2017, total MVSx increased steadily with population growth. Whereas the relative use of MVr remained static (34% to 38%), that for bio.MVR (22% to 50%) and mech.MVR (45% to 13%) changed significantly. MVr had the best outcome with 1.2% in-hospital, 2.5% 1-year, and 21.6% total cumulative mortality during a median follow-up of 6.5 years. Compared to MVr, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for mech.MVR and bio.MVR for long-term mortality were 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.24-1.61) and 1.73 (95% CI=1.53-1.95), respectively. Heart failure and sepsis were the main cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes of death in all groups.

CONCLUSION

In this statewide Australian cohort examined over 17 years, MVr is potentially underutilised despite having superior outcomes to MVR. Access to quality dataset which provides the indication for MVSx and quantitative clinical factors is critical to further improve MVr coverage and outcome MVSx.

Cardiac Surgery 2021 Reviewed

PubMed displayed more than 35,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2021." We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. As in recent years, we reviewed the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with their interventional alternatives. COVID reduced cardiac surgical activity around the world. In the coronary field, the FAME 3 trial dominated publications by practically repeating SYNTAX, but with modern stents and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). PCI was again unable to achieve non-inferiority compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with triple-vessel disease. Survival advantages of CABG over PCI could be linked to a reduction in myocardial infarctions and current terminology was criticized because the term "myocardial revascularization" is not precise and does not reflect the infarct-preventing collateralization effect of CABG. In structural heart disease, new guidelines were published, providing upgrades of interventional treatments of both aortic and mitral valve disease. While for aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) received a primary recommendation in older and high-risk patients; recommendations for transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge treatment were upgraded for patients considered inappropriate for surgery. For heart team discussions it is important to know that classic aortic valve replacement currently provides strong signals (from registry and randomized evidence) for a survival advantage over TAVI after 5 years. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It can neither be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Ischemic mitral regurgitation: when should one intervene?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Optimal timing of intervention for ischemic mitral regurgitation remains to be elucidated. This review summarizes the data on the management of ischemic mitral regurgitation, and their implications on current practice and future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mechanistically, ischemic mitral regurgitation can present as Type I, Type IIIb or mixed Type I and IIIb disease. Severity of mitral regurgitation is typically quantified with echocardiography, either transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography, but may also be assessed via cardiac MRI. In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, revascularization can lead to left ventricular reverse remodeling in some. In patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, mitral valve replacement may be associated with fewer adverse events related to heart failure and cardiovascular readmissions, compared with valve repair, although reverse remodeling may be better in patients following successful mitral repair. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair also further complements the treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation.

SUMMARY

A tailored approach to patients should be considered for each patient presenting with ischemic mitral regurgitation.