Key result
Mitral valve repair during concomitant aortic valve replacement was associated with similar 30-day (5.6% vs 10.1%, P=0.081) and 5-year mortality (35.1% vs 37.8%, P=0.232) compared to replacement.
Why the study?
Does mitral valve repair compared to mitral valve replacement improve outcomes in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=424)
No
Does mitral valve repair compared to mitral valve replacement improve outcomes in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.6% vs 10.1%
p-value: p=0.081
Mitral valve repair can be safely performed during concomitant aortic valve replacement with comparable midterm mortality to replacement and fewer early complications, though with lower durability than isolated repair.
May support repair feasibility during concomitant AVR; leaves open need for RCTs on durability and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates outcomes of mitral valve surgery (MVS), replacement (MVR), and repair (MVr), during concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: Patients undergoing MVS with concomitant AVR between 2011 and 2017 at a single center were reviewed. Patients were stratified into MVR versus MVr with concomitant AVR. Outcomes included early and midterm mortality, hospital re-admissions, re-operations, and complications. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used for risk-adjustment. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients underwent MVS with concomitant AVR: 247 (58.3%) MVr and 177 (41.7%) MVR. In unadjusted analysis, there was a non-significant increase in 30-day mortality with MVR, with no differences in 1- and 5-year mortality (30-day: 5.6% vs 10.1%, P = 0.081; 1-year: 14% vs 18.2%, P = 0.181; 5-year: 35.1% vs 37.8%, P = 0.232). Freedom from re-admission and mitral reoperation were comparable. Freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation at 5 years was 78% in MVr patients. Those undergoing MVR had increased postoperative blood transfusions, acute renal failure, and pleural effusions requiring drainage (P each <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MVr can be performed during concomitant AVR without an adverse impact on longer-term outcomes, including mortality, re-admissions, and mitral reoperations. The majority of patients have durable repairs at 5 years although durability is less than that reported in isolated MVS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coyan et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring surgery with concomitant aortic valve replacement (n=424). Mitral valve repair (MVr) vs. Mitral valve replacement (MVR) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.081). Mitral valve repair during concomitant aortic valve replacement was associated with similar 30-day (5.6% vs 10.1%, P=0.081) and 5-year mortality (35.1% vs 37.8%, P=0.232) compared to replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: