Key result
Older age is not linked to increased 30-day mortality after mitral valve repair.
Why the study?
Data regarding durability and midterm benefits of mitral valve repair in elderly patients are scarce.
Does mitral valve repair with or without tricuspid valve repair result in similar 30-day mortality in older patients (≥75 years) compared to younger patients (<75 years)?
Cohort (n=562)
Does mitral valve repair with or without tricuspid valve repair result in similar 30-day mortality in older patients (≥75 years) compared to younger patients (<75 years)?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 1%
p-value: p=0.30
Mitral valve repair is safe and feasible in elderly patients (≥75 years), demonstrating excellent postoperative mortality rates comparable to younger patients despite a higher preoperative risk profile.
May support mitral valve repair in selected elderly patients; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation before changing practice.
OBJECTIVES: Data regarding durability and midterm benefits of mitral valve (MV) repair in elderly patients are scarce. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of MV repair in elderly patients, we performed a retrospective data analysis. METHODS: We compared clinical outcomes in younger patients (<75 years: n = 462) and older patients (≥75 years: n = 100) undergoing MV repair with or without tricuspid valve (TV) repair. The primary end-point was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The preoperative risk profile (EuroSCORE, NYHA class, percentage pulmonary hypertension, percentage diabetes) was higher in older patients compared with younger patients. Nevertheless, operative complications such as low cardiac output syndrome, stroke, infections, the need of haemofiltration and IABP use did not differ significantly between the two groups. The thirty-day mortality rate was 0% in older patients and 1% in younger patients (P = 0.30). In the subgroup of patients with double valve repair, the 30-day mortality rate in older patients (n = 28) and younger patients (n = 46) was 0 and 4%, respectively (P = 0.27). In older and younger patients, the 6-month mortality rate was 4 and 2%, respectively (P = 0.16), and the 1-year mortality rate was 10 and 3%, respectively (P = 0.001). The propensity score-adjusted odds ratio of 1-year mortality with the group of younger patients as a reference was 2.04 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-5.40; P = 0.15) for older patients. Freedom from 1-year reoperation did not differ significantly between age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Data demonstrate excellent postoperative mortality rates in older patients undergoing MV repair with or without TV repair. Consequently, even in older patients with numerous comorbidities, MV repair should be considered a suitable surgical method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Renner et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring repair (n=562). Older age (≥75 years) vs. Younger age (<75 years) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.30). Older age (≥75 years) was not associated with increased 30-day mortality compared to younger age (<75 years) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair (0% vs 1%, P=0.30).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: