Key result
Mitral valve replacement linked to ~87% higher mortality compared to repair.
Why the study?
Long-term nationwide data comparing mitral valve repair versus replacement and age-dependent outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves remain limited.
Does mitral valve replacement compared with mitral valve repair (and mechanical vs. bioprosthetic valves) affect long-term all-cause mortality in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery?
Cohort (n=19,844)
Yes
Does mitral valve replacement compared with mitral valve repair (and mechanical vs. bioprosthetic valves) affect long-term all-cause mortality in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mitral valve repair demonstrated superior long-term survival and clinical outcomes over replacement in a 25-year nationwide cohort, while mechanical valves offered an age-dependent survival benefit in patients under 60-65 years that disappeared by age 70 despite persistent excess bleeding risk.
Background Long-term nationwide data comparing mitral valve repair versus replacement and age-dependent outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves remain limited. Objectives To evaluate 25-year national trends and long-term outcomes of mitral valve surgery and to determine age-modified associations between mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses. Methods Using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (1997–2022), we identified 19,844 patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included heart failure (HF) hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolization (SSE), major bleeding, and reoperation. Kaplan–Meier analyses and multivariable Cox models adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities were performed. Age interactions were evaluated using restricted cubic splines. Results Among 19,844 patients, 8,877 underwent repair and 10,967 replacement (3,833 mechanical; 5,408 bioprosthetic). Replacement patients were older (62.9±14.2 vs 53.4±13.3 years, p<0.001) and had higher comorbidity burden. Over a median follow-up of 70.9 months, 7,513 deaths occurred. Compared with repair, replacement was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.70–2.07; p<0.001), HF hospitalization (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.54–1.98; p<0.001), and stroke/SSE (HR 2.35, 95% CI 2.08–2.65; p<0.001). Among replacement strategies, mechanical valves were associated with increased major bleeding (HR 2.67, 95% CI 2.37–3.00; p<0.001) and hemorrhagic stroke (HR 2.82, 95% CI 2.23–3.57; p<0.001) compared with bioprosthetic valves, but lower reoperation risk (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49–0.79; p<0.001). Spline-adjusted modeling demonstrated significant age interaction for mortality (P for interaction<0.001). Mechanical valves were associated with lower mortality in younger patients, with survival advantage most pronounced below 60–65 years, but this benefit attenuated with advancing age and was no longer observed in patients ≥70 years (HR 1.03 at age 70; 95% CI 0.90–1.17). In contrast, excess bleeding risk with mechanical valves persisted across all age strata. Conclusions In this nationwide 25-year cohort, mitral valve repair was associated with superior long-term outcomes compared with replacement. Mechanical valves provided an age-dependent survival advantage in younger patients but at the cost of substantially increased bleeding risk, with diminishing mortality benefit in older individuals. These findings support individualized, age-tailored prosthesis selection.Cubic spine curve
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease undergoing mitral valve surgery (n=19,844). Mitral valve replacement (including mechanical and bioprosthetic valves) vs. Mitral valve repair (and bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.70-2.07, p=<0.001). Mitral valve replacement was associated with higher all-cause mortality than repair (adjusted HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.70–2.07; p<0.001), while mechanical valves reduced mortality only in patients <70 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: