Key result
Mitral valve repair for rheumatic heart disease yielded similar 5-year survival to valve replacement (unadjusted HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.4-1.7), with no differences persisting after adjustment.
Why the study?
Does mitral valve repair improve long-term survival compared to mitral valve replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease?
Cohort (n=6,876)
Yes
Does mitral valve repair improve long-term survival compared to mitral valve replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease?
Effect estimate: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.4-1.7)
Adjusted long-term survival following mitral valve repair for rheumatic heart disease is similar to valve replacement and comparable to outcomes in non-rheumatic heart disease.
Similar survival after repair versus replacement in RHD should not yet change practice; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: To further the understanding of the factors influencing outcome following rheumatic heart disease (RHD) related mitral valve surgery, which globally remains an important cause of heart disease and a particular problem in Indigenous Australians. METHODS: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Database was utilised to assess outcomes following mitral valve repair and replacement for RHD and non-RHD valve disease. The association with aetiology, demographics, comorbidities, preoperative status and operative procedure was evaluated. RESULTS: Mitral valve repairs and replacements undertaken in Australia were analysed from 119 and 1078 RHD surgical procedures and 3279 and 2400 non-RHD procedures, respectively. RHD mitral valve repair, compared with replacement, resulted in a slightly shorter hospital stay and more reoperation for valve dysfunction, but no difference in 30-day survival. In unadjusted survival analysis to 5 years, RHD mitral valve repair and replacement were no different (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), non-RHD repair was superior to replacement (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), RHD and non-RHD repair were no different (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7), and RHD replacement was superior to non-RHD (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9). None of these differences persisted in adjusted analyses and there was no difference in long-term survival for Indigenous Australians. CONCLUSION: In this large prospective cohort study we have demonstrated that adjusted long-term survival following RHD mitral valve repair surgery in Australia is no different to replacement and no different to non-RHD. Interpretation of valve surgery outcome requires careful consideration of patient factors that may also influence survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Russell et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Rheumatic heart disease (n=6,876). Mitral valve repair vs. Mitral valve replacement was evaluated on 5-year survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4-1.7). Mitral valve repair for rheumatic heart disease yielded similar 5-year survival to valve replacement (unadjusted HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.4-1.7), with no differences persisting after adjustment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: