Key result
Mitral valve repair yields similar 1-year mortality and regurgitation rates to replacement for ischemic MR.
Why the study?
Recent reports suggested better hemodynamic performance with mitral valve replacement than repair without survival differences at 2 years, prompting further evaluation of outcomes including hemodynamics at 1 and 2 years.
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve mortality and hemodynamic performance in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation requiring revascularization?
Population
111 patients aged ≥ 18 years requiring mitral valve surgery with concomitant CABG or PCI
Comparison
MVr using ring annuloplasty vs MVR
Design
Single-center retrospective database cohort study
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Similar outcomes support individualized choice in ischemic MR; leaves open durability questions for randomized trials.
Cohort (n=111)
No
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve mortality and hemodynamic performance in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation requiring revascularization?
Absolute Event Rate: 14% vs 18%
p-value: p=0.17
Mitral valve repair and replacement offer similar early mortality and mid-term valve performance in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation requiring surgical revascularization.
Sweeney et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Ischemic mitral regurgitation (n=111). Mitral valve repair (MVr) vs. Mitral valve replacement (MVR) was evaluated on 1-year mortality (p=0.17). Mitral valve repair for ischemic mitral regurgitation resulted in similar 1-year mortality (14% vs 18%, p=0.17) and 2-year moderate or severe regurgitation (7% vs 13%, p=0.68) compared to replacement.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: