Feasibility and outcome of mitral valve repair in patients with infective endocarditis

To repair or to replace in mitral valve infective endocarditis? an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that affects patients' livelihoods. Current surgical options in mitral valve IE include mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR). While each procedure boasts its merits, doubt remains as to which type of surgery is superior.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane literature databases for studies comparing MVR and MVr in mitral valve IE. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational studies that compare MVR vs. MVr in mitral valve IE were eligible. Our dichotomous outcomes were extracted in the form of event and total, and risk and hazard ratio (RR)(HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and were pooled and calculated using RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

Our study included 23 studies with a total population of 11,802 patients. Compared to MVR, MVr had statistically significant lower risks of both early mortality with RR [0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51; p < 0.001] and long-term follow-up mortality with HR [0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85; p = 0.0004]. Moreover, MVr was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of IE recurrence with RR [0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58; p < 0.001]; however, no statistically significant differences between both groups in terms of re-operations with RR [0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.67; p = 0.60].

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that MVr was superior in terms of in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and risk of recurrence without significance in valve reoperation. Therefore, MVr is appropriate as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Should more patients be offered repair for mitral valve endocarditis? a single-centre 15-year experience

Objective

To describe the long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with native valve infective endocarditis (IE) at a centre with high-repair rates.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study. From 2005 to 2021, 183 patients with active or healed native valve IE were included. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient status was last confirmed 31 March 2021. Secondary outcomes were post-operative MR, MV reoperation, length of post-operative intensive care stay and total hospital stay.

Results

85 patients (46.4%) underwent MVr and 98 (53.6%) underwent MVR. Follow-up was 98.9% complete. Mean follow-up time was 5.3 years with 17% of patients reaching a follow-up time of over 10 years. There were 47 deaths (25.7%) within the follow-up period. MVR patients were more likely to have higher logistic EuroSCORE, active IE and were less likely to have elective surgery. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality between MVr and MVR groups (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval [0.59–2.00]). In Kaplan–Meier analysis, MVR patients had a higher all-cause mortality although there was no significant difference at the endpoint. Propensity score matching analysis showed a significantly higher mortality in the replacement group instead (p = 0.002), Subgroup analysis revealed there remained no significant difference in mortality even in patients with active IE (P-interaction = 0.859) or non-elective surgery (P-interaction = 0.122). MV reoperation (odds ratio 1.00 [0.24–4.12]), post-operative intensive care stay (p = 0.9650) and total hospital stay (p = 0.9144) were comparable.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrates repair was at least non-inferior to replacement in IE, supporting more aggressive use of repair. There is no reason the general principle of why repair is superior to replacement should not hold in IE, with enough operator expertise. Other experienced units should be encouraged to increase repair rates as feasible in line with current guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01997-2.

Valve replacement or repair in native mitral valve infective endocarditis-Which is better? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Native mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) plagues patients and surgeons alike because of its high mortality and recurrence rates as well as poor prognosis. Mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) are two main surgical methods. However, the question of which benefits patients more remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically review the two approaches, focusing on the early survival rate and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using studies sourced from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane literature databases to compare MVP and MVR, with data extracted for baseline characteristics, mortality, survival, recurrent endocarditis, and valve reoperation. Risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) values were calculated, and publication bias was tested.

RESULTS

A total of 17 relevant publications with a total population of 3759 patients, with 1180 patients having undergone MVP and 2579 patients having undergone MVR, respectively, were analyzed. Patients who underwent MVP may benefit from a lower risk of early mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.66; p < .00001), a higher long-term survival rate (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; p < .001; I2  = 0%), and a lower risk of recurrence (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.09; p = .10; I2  = 0%). However, a similar risk of reoperation was observed for both groups (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.36-2.91; p = .96; I2  = 43%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MVP may lead to better outcomes compared to MVR. Among patients with mitral valve IE, MVP can reduce in-hospital mortality, improve long-term survival, and has a lower risk of recurrent endocarditis. As a result, MVP may be suitable as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.