OBJECTIVES: The reported superiority of mitral valve (MV) repair for isolated MV regurgitation has not been confirmed in mitroaortic valve surgery. Our goals were to evaluate the feasibility of repair in patients undergoing mitral and aortic valve surgery and to identify factors predisposing to MV replacement, to compare long-term outcomes (survival and MV reoperation) of repair and replacement and to perform a subgroup analysis in patients with rheumatic MV disease. METHODS: From January 1992 through December 2016, 1122 consecutive patients were submitted to concomitant aortic and MV surgery in 2 different centres (Coimbra and Santiago). Of these, 837 patients underwent MV repair (74.6%) and 285 patients had MV replacement (25.4%). Rheumatic aetiology was predominant (666 patients; 59.4%). Cumulative follow-up was 9522.6 patient-years (25th-75th percentile 2.6-13.2 years) and was complete for 95.6% of patients. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed in 232 patients for comparing each treatment option (MV repair and MV replacement). RESULTS: Previous MV intervention, rheumatic aetiology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher degrees of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were independently correlated with MV replacement. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in patients with MV replacement (4.2% vs 1.8%, P = 0.021) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (4.7% vs 1.7%, P = 0.06). Late survival was lower in the MV replacement group (53.3 ± 4.5% vs 61.7 ± 2.0% at 12 years; P = 0.026) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (54.6 ± 4.9% vs 63.2 ± 3.8%, P = 0.062) and rheumatic subgroup (57.9 ± 4.8% vs 68.0 ± 2.5%, P = 0.018). Freedom from MV reoperation at 12 years was higher in the MV repair group (94.7 ± 1.1% vs 89.0 ± 3.1%, P = 0.004) but similar in patients with rheumatic MV disease. CONCLUSIONS: MV repair can be performed in most patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. It should be the procedure of choice whenever feasible, because it is associated with lower early and late mortality rates and with freedom from reoperation in non-rheumatic patients.
OBJECTIVES: The reported superiority of mitral valve (MV) repair for isolated MV regurgitation has not been confirmed in mitroaortic valve surgery. Our goals were to evaluate the feasibility of repair in patients undergoing mitral and aortic valve surgery and to identify factors predisposing to MV replacement, to compare long-term outcomes (survival and MV reoperation) of repair and replacement and to perform a subgroup analysis in patients with rheumatic MV disease. METHODS: From January 1992 through December 2016, 1122 consecutive patients were submitted to concomitant aortic and MV surgery in 2 different centres (Coimbra and Santiago). Of these, 837 patients underwent MV repair (74.6%) and 285 patients had MV replacement (25.4%). Rheumatic aetiology was predominant (666 patients; 59.4%). Cumulative follow-up was 9522.6 patient-years (25th-75th percentile 2.6-13.2 years) and was complete for 95.6% of patients. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed in 232 patients for comparing each treatment option (MV repair and MV replacement). RESULTS: Previous MV intervention, rheumatic aetiology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher degrees of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were independently correlated with MV replacement. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in patients with MV replacement (4.2% vs 1.8%, P = 0.021) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (4.7% vs 1.7%, P = 0.06). Late survival was lower in the MV replacement group (53.3 ± 4.5% vs 61.7 ± 2.0% at 12 years; P = 0.026) and was confirmed in the propensity score matching (54.6 ± 4.9% vs 63.2 ± 3.8%, P = 0.062) and rheumatic subgroup (57.9 ± 4.8% vs 68.0 ± 2.5%, P = 0.018). Freedom from MV reoperation at 12 years was higher in the MV repair group (94.7 ± 1.1% vs 89.0 ± 3.1%, P = 0.004) but similar in patients with rheumatic MV disease. CONCLUSIONS: MV repair can be performed in most patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. It should be the procedure of choice whenever feasible, because it is associated with lower early and late mortality rates and with freedom from reoperation in non-rheumaticpatients.
Authors: Martin L Egger; Brigitta Gahl; Luca Koechlin; Lena Schömig; Peter Matt; Oliver Reuthebuch; Friedrich S Eckstein; Martin T R Grapow Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 1.522