Key result
Rheumatic mitral valve repair is linked to substantially more reoperations than replacement but avoids anticoagulation.
Why the study?
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve long-term outcomes in young patients with rheumatic mitral valve lesions?
Observational (n=116)
No
Does mitral valve repair compared to replacement improve long-term outcomes in young patients with rheumatic mitral valve lesions?
Absolute Event Rate: 44.7% vs 91.7%
In young patients with rheumatic mitral valve lesions, mitral valve repair provides similar clinical outcomes to replacement but is associated with a higher rate of reoperation, particularly when the primary lesion is mitral stenosis.
Repair was associated with higher reoperation but similar outcomes without anticoagulation; leaves open optimal strategy pending randomized trials in young rheumatic patients.
BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of rheumatic mitral valve repair remains controversial due to the risks of recurrent mitral dysfunction and need for reoperation. The aims of this study were to determine the overall short- and long-term outcomes of pediatric rheumatic mitral valve surgery in our center. METHODS: Single-center, observational, retrospective study that analyzed the results of rheumatic mitral valve surgery in young patients, consecutively operated by the same team, between 1999 and 2014. RESULTS: We included 116 patients (mean age = 12.6 ± 3.5 years), of which 66 (57%) were females. A total of 116 primary surgical interventions and 22 reoperations were performed. Primary valve repair was possible in 86 (74%) patients and valve replacement occurred in 30 (26%). Sixty percent of the patients were followed up beyond three months after surgery (median follow-up time = 9.2 months [minimum = 10 days; maximum = 15 years]). Long-term clinical outcomes were favorable, with most patients in New York Heart Association functional class I (89.6%) and in sinus rhythm (85%). Freedom from reoperation for primary valve repair at six months, five years, and ten years was 96.4% ± 0.25%, 72% ± 0.72%, and 44.7% ± 1.34%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation for primary valve replacement at six months, five years, and ten years was 100%, 91.7% ± 0.86%, and 91.7% ± 0.86%, respectively. Mitral stenosis as the primary lesion dictated early reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the greater rate of reoperation, especially when the primary lesion was mitral stenosis, rheumatic mitral valve repair provides similar clinical outcomes as compared with replacement, with the advantage of avoiding anticoagulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cardoso et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Rheumatic mitral valve lesions (n=116). Primary mitral valve repair vs. Primary mitral valve replacement was evaluated on Freedom from reoperation at 10 years. Primary rheumatic mitral valve repair had lower 10-year freedom from reoperation than replacement (44.7% vs 91.7%), but provided similar clinical outcomes while avoiding anticoagulation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: