Jae W Choi1, Ho Y Hwang1, Kyung H Kim1, Ki-Bong Kim1, Hyuk Ahn2. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea - ahnhyuk@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mitral paravalvular leak (PVL) recurrence after surgical correction has not been well demonstrated. The aims of this study were to evaluate the long-term results of surgical mitral PVL correction, including recurrent PVL, and to elucidate the factors - including surgical technique - that affect the risk of recurrent PVL. METHODS: Eighty-six patients who underwent surgical treatment for mitral PVL were enrolled in this study. Thirty-six patients underwent leak site repair (MVP group), and 50 patients underwent re-replacement (MVR group). Leak site repair was the preferred method and was performed whenever possible. The mean follow-up duration was 58.6±44.1 months (0.1-156.5 months). RESULTS: Operative mortality occurred in 7 patients (8.1%). There were no significant differences in operative mortality or postoperative complications between the groups. Overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 67.9% and 48.3%, respectively, without intergroup differences. Recurrent PVL without any evidence of infective endocarditis was found in 25 patients (29.1%). Five- and 10-year PVL-free rates were 69.9% and 18.3%, respectively. The mortality rate of reoperation for recurrent PVL was 35.2% (6/17). The risk factors of recurrent PVL were the MVR group (hazard ratio: 2.865, 95% CI: 1.077-7.619) and presence of extensive dehiscence (>25% of annulus: 2.861, 95% CI: 1.163-7.038). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent PVL was not infrequent after surgical correction of mitral PVL, and reoperation may be a high-risk procedure. Leak site repair, if it could be performed, would be a good surgical option for mitral PVL because re-replacement was a risk factor for recurrence of PVL.
BACKGROUND:Mitral paravalvular leak (PVL) recurrence after surgical correction has not been well demonstrated. The aims of this study were to evaluate the long-term results of surgical mitral PVL correction, including recurrent PVL, and to elucidate the factors - including surgical technique - that affect the risk of recurrent PVL. METHODS: Eighty-six patients who underwent surgical treatment for mitral PVL were enrolled in this study. Thirty-six patients underwent leak site repair (MVP group), and 50 patients underwent re-replacement (MVR group). Leak site repair was the preferred method and was performed whenever possible. The mean follow-up duration was 58.6±44.1 months (0.1-156.5 months). RESULTS: Operative mortality occurred in 7 patients (8.1%). There were no significant differences in operative mortality or postoperative complications between the groups. Overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 67.9% and 48.3%, respectively, without intergroup differences. Recurrent PVL without any evidence of infective endocarditis was found in 25 patients (29.1%). Five- and 10-year PVL-free rates were 69.9% and 18.3%, respectively. The mortality rate of reoperation for recurrent PVL was 35.2% (6/17). The risk factors of recurrent PVL were the MVR group (hazard ratio: 2.865, 95% CI: 1.077-7.619) and presence of extensive dehiscence (>25% of annulus: 2.861, 95% CI: 1.163-7.038). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent PVL was not infrequent after surgical correction of mitral PVL, and reoperation may be a high-risk procedure. Leak site repair, if it could be performed, would be a good surgical option for mitral PVL because re-replacement was a risk factor for recurrence of PVL.