Key result
Concomitant tricuspid valve repair during minimally invasive mitral valve repair did not significantly increase 30-day mortality compared to isolated mitral valve repair (4.7% vs. 3.2%, p=0.2403).
Why the study?
Concomitant tricuspid valve surgery during minimally invasive mitral valve repair is debated because prolonged operative time may elevate surgical risk.
Does concomitant tricuspid valve repair during minimally invasive mitral valve repair increase 30-day mortality in patients with mitral valve regurgitation?
Cohort (n=3,962)
No
Does concomitant tricuspid valve repair during minimally invasive mitral valve repair increase 30-day mortality in patients with mitral valve regurgitation?
Concomitant tricuspid valve repair during minimally invasive mitral valve repair is safe and does not significantly increase early mortality despite prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass times.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Concomitant tricuspid repair was not associated with higher 30-day mortality; leaves open need for randomized trials before practice change.
Background Concomitant use of tricuspid valve (TV) surgery and minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) repair is debatable due to a prolonged time of surgery with presumably elevated operative risk. Herein, we examined cardiopulmonary bypass times and 30-day mortality in patients who underwent MV repair with and without concomitant TV surgery. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 3,962 patients with MV regurgitation who underwent minimally invasive MV repair without (n = 3,463; MVr group) and with (n = 499; MVr + TVr group) concomitant TV surgery between 1999 and 2014. Preoperative parameters between the groups were significantly different; therefore, propensity score matching was performed. Results Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time for all patients was 125.5 ± 55.8 minutes in MVr and 162.0 ± 58.0 minutes in MVr + TVr (p < 0.001). Overall 30-day mortality was significantly different between these groups (4.8 vs. 2.1%; p < 0.001); however, after adjustment, there was no significant difference (3.3 vs. 1.2%; p = 0.07). Backward logistic regression revealed that cardiopulmonary bypass time was not a significant predictor for early mortality within the MVr + TVr cohort. Conclusion Concomitant TV repair using prosthetic rings through a minimally invasive approach is safe and does not lead to elevated early mortality in our patient cohort. Therefore, prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time should not be the sole reason to rule out MV repair with concomitant TV repair and to prefer the use of suture techniques, which saves only a few minutes compared with prosthetic ring implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pfannmueller et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve regurgitation (n=3,962). Concomitant tricuspid valve repair vs. Isolated minimally invasive mitral valve repair was evaluated on 30-day mortality (after propensity score matching) (p=0.2403). Concomitant tricuspid valve repair during minimally invasive mitral valve repair did not significantly increase 30-day mortality compared to isolated mitral valve repair (4.7% vs. 3.2%, p=0.2403).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: