Key result
Surgical mitral valve repair linked to ~58% lower 3-year mortality versus transcatheter repair.
Why the study?
The study aimed to investigate outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical mitral valve repair in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation using a global multi-institutional database.
Does transcatheter mitral valve repair compared to surgical mitral valve repair reduce mortality and reoperation in patients with chronic, severe, ischemic secondary mitral regurgitation?
Cohort (n=1,100)
Yes
Does transcatheter mitral valve repair compared to surgical mitral valve repair reduce mortality and reoperation in patients with chronic, severe, ischemic secondary mitral regurgitation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.42 (95% CI 0.31–0.56)
Absolute Event Rate: 20.7% vs 40.3%
p-value: p=<0.0001
In patients with chronic severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, surgical mitral valve repair was associated with significantly better 3-year survival and lower reintervention rates compared to transcatheter repair.
May support surgical over transcatheter repair in ischemic MR; leaves open randomized confirmation of survival benefit.
Objective. We aimed to investigate outcomes in transcatheter versus surgical mitral valve repair in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) by leveraging a global, multi-institutional federated network database. Methods. Using validated ICD-10 and CPT codes, the TriNetX Analytics Research Data Network (a global federated database of electronic health records from 58 healthcare organizations) was queried to identify patients diagnosed with chronic, severe, ischemic MR and undergoing either transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) or surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. To adjust for baseline differences, 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed via logistic regression using the nearest-neighbor approach and matching for 29 covariates including demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, preoperative medications, left ventricular function and heart failure status. We compared 1- and 3-year mortality rates and 1- and 3-year mitral valve reoperation rates in the matched cohorts using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results. A total of 2,352 patients met inclusion criteria (1,392 in the surgical mitral valve repair group and 960 in the TMVr group). After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, a total of 550 patients undergoing surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) were compared to 550 patients undergoing TMVr. All characteristics were adequately matched between the cohorts (standardized mean difference <0.1). At 1- and 3-years respectively, mortality rate was 13.4% and 20.7% for surgical patients and 19.8% and 40.3% for TMVr patients. When compared to TMVr, patients undergoing SMVr were significantly less likely to face mortality at 3 years (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.31–0.56, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mtext> </a:mtext> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mtext> </a:mtext> <a:mn>0.0001</a:mn> </a:math> ). At 1- and 3-years respectively, mitral valve reoperation was 2.2%, and 2.4% for surgical patients and 6.6% and 7.8% for TMVr patients. When compared to TMVr, patients undergoing SMVr were significantly less likely to undergo mitral valve reintervention at 3 years (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14–0.58, p = 0.0002). Conclusion. In a real-world, propensity score matching analysis of a large cohort of patients with chronic ischemic MR, surgical mitral valve repair had significantly better survival rates and significantly lower reintervention rates at 1- and 3-years compared to TMVr.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amabile et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Chronic, severe, ischemic secondary mitral regurgitation (n=1,100). Surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) vs. Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) was evaluated on 3-year mortality (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.56, p=<0.0001). Surgical mitral valve repair was associated with significantly lower 3-year mortality compared to transcatheter repair (20.7% vs 40.3%; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.56, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: