Why the study?
Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement has emerged for high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgery, but comparisons of hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations versus repeat surgical mitral valve replacement were needed.
Does repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement improve hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations compared to repeat surgical mitral valve replacement in patients requiring repeat mitral valve intervention?
Does repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement improve hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations compared to repeat surgical mitral valve replacement in patients requiring repeat mitral valve intervention?
Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a safe alternative to repeat surgery that shortens hospital stay with comparable mortality, though it carries a higher risk of reoperation.
rTMVR was associated with shorter stays but more reoperations; leaves open need for RCTs before changing repeat mitral valve practice.
INTRODUCTION: Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement (rTMVR) has emerged as a new option for the management of high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR). The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations after rTMVR versus surgical mitral valve replacement. METHODS: We compared patients who underwent rTMVR (n=22) from 2017 to 2019 (Group 1) to patients who underwent rSMVR (n=98) with or without tricuspid valve surgery from 2009 to 2019 (Group 2). We excluded patients who underwent a concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement or other concomitant surgery. RESULTS: Patients in Group 1 were significantly older (72.5 [67-78] vs. 57 [52-64] years, P<0.001). There was no diference in EuroSCORE II between groups (6.56 [5.47-8.04] vs. 6.74 [4.28-11.84], P=0.86). Implanted valve size was 26 (26-29) mm in Group 1 and 25 (25-27) mm in Group 2 (P=0.106). There was no diference in operative mortality between groups (P=0.46). However, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were shorter in Group 1 (P=0.03 and <0.001, respectively). NYHA class improved significantly in both groups at one year (P<0.001 for both groups). There was no group effect on survival (P=0.84) or cardiac readmission (P=0.26). However, reoperations were more frequent in Group 1 (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve could shorten ICU and hospital stay compared to rSMVR with a comparable mortality rate. rTMVR is a safe procedure; however, it has a higher risk of reoperation. rTMVR can be an option in selected high-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arafat et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: