Key result
In elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, mitral valve repair resulted in fewer reinterventions for bleeding compared to replacement (0% vs 10.9%, P=0.005).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess single-centre results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery in elderly patients.
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve survival and postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
Cohort (n=131)
No
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve survival and postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
In elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, mitral valve replacement appears equivalent to repair in terms of mortality and MACCE, though it is associated with longer procedural times and higher bleeding risk.
MIMVS may yield favorable midterm outcomes in selected elderly patients; leaves open repair versus replacement preference without randomized data.
OBJECTIVES: The goal was to assess the single-centre results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) in the elderly population. METHODS: All patients referred for minimally invasive valve surgery underwent a standardized preoperative screening. We performed a retrospective analysis of 131 consecutive elderly patients (≥75 years) who underwent endoscopic MIMVS through a right mini-thoracotomy. Survival and postoperative course were assessed in 2 groups: a repair group and a replacement group. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent mitral valve repair, and 46 had mitral valve replacement. The mean age was 79 ± 2.9 years, and the median follow-up duration was 3.8 years. The cardiopulmonary bypass time (128.7 min vs 155.9 min, P = 0.012) and the cross-clamp time (84.9 min vs 124.1 min, P = 0.005) were significantly longer in the replacement group. Except for more reinterventions for bleeding in the replacement group (10.9% vs 0%, P = 0.005), there were no significant differences in the postoperative course between the 2 groups. Low mortality rates at the midterm follow-up were observed in both groups, and no differences were observed between the 4-and the 12-month follow-up. Survival rates after 1 year and 5 years were 97.6% and 88.6%, respectively, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: MIMVS is an excellent treatment option in vulnerable elderly patients with excellent short- and long-term results. Although other studies suggest that repair could be superior to replacement even in older patients, our experience suggests that replacement is equivalent to repair in terms of mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Experience and standardized preoperative screening are mandatory to achieve optimal results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cocchieri et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring surgery (n=131). Mitral valve repair vs. Mitral valve replacement was evaluated on Reinterventions for bleeding (p=0.005). In elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, mitral valve repair resulted in fewer reinterventions for bleeding compared to replacement (0% vs 10.9%, P=0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: