Key result
Systematic review compares long-term outcomes and durability of valve replacement versus valve repair.
Why the study?
Long-term results of valve replacement and valve repair surgeries, including mortality, reoperation rates, durability, and quality-of-life, require comprehensive assessment and comparison.
Systematic Review
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Valve repair confers better long-term survival and lower reoperation than replacement; reinforces repair-first preference when anatomically feasible.
The long-term results of valve replacement (VR) and valve repair (VRp) surgeries will be assessed and compared in this thorough analysis, with particular attention paid to mortality, reoperation rates, durability, and quality-of-life indicators. From the beginning until 2024, we systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases using keywords associated with “valve replacement,” “valve repair,” and “long-term outcomes.” Randomized controlled trials, observational cohorts, and meta-analyses were among the studies that had at least 5 years of follow-up. Case reports, articles written in languages other than English, and research without comparable data were among the exclusion criteria. All-cause mortality, reoperation rate, thromboembolic events, valve durability, and patient-reported outcomes were the main topics of data extraction. When data allowed, meta-analytic comparisons were added to the qualitative synthesis of the evidence. To support evidence-based decision-making for the treatment of valvular heart disease, this review emphasizes the trade-offs between VR and VRp.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omar Elsaka (2026) conducted a systematic review in Valvular heart disease. Valve replacement vs. Valve repair was evaluated on All-cause mortality, reoperation rate, thromboembolic events, valve durability, and patient-reported outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: