Comparison of Repair vs Replacement in Calcific and Rheumatic Mitral Disease.


Journal

The Annals of thoracic surgery
ISSN: 1552-6259
Titre abrégé: Ann Thorac Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 15030100R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 19 11 2022
revised: 13 04 2023
accepted: 23 04 2023
pubmed: 5 6 2023
medline: 5 6 2023
entrez: 4 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The benefit of repair over replacement of rheumatic or calcified mitral valve (MV) is debatable. Patients who underwent MV repair or replacement for rheumatic or calcified MV disease between 2006 and 2020 were identified in the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Procedures. Patients who underwent additional procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting or tricuspid valve surgery, as well as redo or emergency cases, were excluded. The long-term survival was verified based on National Health Fund registry data. The survival was compared between MV repair and replacement in the whole cohort and after propensity score matching. We included 4338 patients: 1859 (43%) with pure mitral regurgitation and 2479 (57%) with mitral stenosis. MV was repaired in 543 patients (29%) with pure regurgitation and 126 (5.1%) with stenosis (P < .001). In total, 984 (23%) patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and 1358 (32%) tricuspid valve surgery. MV repair improved survival (hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.97; P = .022) in patients with no mitral stenosis, and had no effect in mitral stenosis (hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.59; P = .332). The results were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. The freedom from MV reoperation at 10 years was 95.5% ± 1.2% after repair and 96.0% ± 0.7% after MV replacement (P = .416) in the absence of stenosis and 91.8% ± 3.4% after repair vs 95.9% ± 0.5% after replacement in patients with mitral stenosis (P = .065). Repair of rheumatic/calcified mitral valve should be a preferred option in patients with no mitral stenosis, but confers no benefit if mitral stenosis is present.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The benefit of repair over replacement of rheumatic or calcified mitral valve (MV) is debatable.
METHODS METHODS
Patients who underwent MV repair or replacement for rheumatic or calcified MV disease between 2006 and 2020 were identified in the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Procedures. Patients who underwent additional procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting or tricuspid valve surgery, as well as redo or emergency cases, were excluded. The long-term survival was verified based on National Health Fund registry data. The survival was compared between MV repair and replacement in the whole cohort and after propensity score matching.
RESULTS RESULTS
We included 4338 patients: 1859 (43%) with pure mitral regurgitation and 2479 (57%) with mitral stenosis. MV was repaired in 543 patients (29%) with pure regurgitation and 126 (5.1%) with stenosis (P < .001). In total, 984 (23%) patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and 1358 (32%) tricuspid valve surgery. MV repair improved survival (hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.97; P = .022) in patients with no mitral stenosis, and had no effect in mitral stenosis (hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.59; P = .332). The results were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. The freedom from MV reoperation at 10 years was 95.5% ± 1.2% after repair and 96.0% ± 0.7% after MV replacement (P = .416) in the absence of stenosis and 91.8% ± 3.4% after repair vs 95.9% ± 0.5% after replacement in patients with mitral stenosis (P = .065).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Repair of rheumatic/calcified mitral valve should be a preferred option in patients with no mitral stenosis, but confers no benefit if mitral stenosis is present.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37271445
pii: S0003-4975(23)00574-X
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.04.048
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

954-961

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Marek A Deja (MA)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland. Electronic address: mdeja@sum.edu.pl.

Marcin Malinowski (M)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

Kazimierz Widenka (K)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland.

Nikodem Stożyński (N)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, District Hospital No 2, Rzeszów, Poland.

Krzysztof Bartuś (K)

Department of Surgery of Heart, Vessels and Transplantology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Bogusław Kapelak (B)

Department of Surgery of Heart, Vessels and Transplantology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Mariusz Kuśmierczyk (M)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Warsaw Medical University, Warszawa, Poland.

Grzegorz Hirnle (G)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Transplantology, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Silesian Centre for Heart Disease, Zabrze, Poland.

Piotr Suwalski (P)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior and Administration, Warszawa, Poland.

Marek Jasiński (M)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland.

Witold Gerber (W)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, American Heart of Poland, Bielsko-Biała, Poland.

Zdzisław Tobota (Z)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Children's Memorial Health Institute, Warszawa, Poland.

Kamil Barański (K)

Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

Bohdan J Maruszewski (BJ)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Children's Memorial Health Institute, Warszawa, Poland.

Classifications MeSH