RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The benefit of repair over replacement of rheumatic or calcified mitral valve (MV) is debatable. METHODS: Patients who underwent MV repair or replacement for rheumatic or calcified MV disease between 2006 and 2020 were identified in the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Procedures. Patients who underwent additional procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting or tricuspid valve surgery, as well as redo or emergency cases, were excluded. The long-term survival was verified based on National Health Fund registry data. The survival was compared between MV repair and replacement in the whole cohort and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: We included 4338 patients: 1859 (43%) with pure mitral regurgitation and 2479 (57%) with mitral stenosis. MV was repaired in 543 patients (29%) with pure regurgitation and 126 (5.1%) with stenosis (P < .001). In total, 984 (23%) patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and 1358 (32%) tricuspid valve surgery. MV repair improved survival (hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.97; P = .022) in patients with no mitral stenosis, and had no effect in mitral stenosis (hazard ratio 1.17; 95% CI 0.85-1.59; P = .332). The results were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. The freedom from MV reoperation at 10 years was 95.5% ± 1.2% after repair and 96.0% ± 0.7% after MV replacement (P = .416) in the absence of stenosis and 91.8% ± 3.4% after repair vs 95.9% ± 0.5% after replacement in patients with mitral stenosis (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of rheumatic/calcified mitral valve should be a preferred option in patients with no mitral stenosis, but confers no benefit if mitral stenosis is present.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical strategy (repair vs replacement) for patients with secondary mitral (MV) regurgitation is questionable. METHODS: Patients who underwent MV repair or replacement for functional or ischemic mitral regurgitation between 2006 and 2017 were identified in Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Procedures. Patients, who underwent additional procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting or tricuspid valve surgery, as well as redo or emergency cases, were excluded. The long-term survival was verified based on National Health Fund registry. The survival was compared between MV repair and replacement both in the whole cohort and after propensity score matching. The Cox regression was used to seek for independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: Of 7633 identified patients, 1793 (23%) underwent MV replacement and 5840 (77%) underwent MV repair. Coronary artery bypass surgery was performed together with MV repair in 3992 (69%) patients and together with MV replacement in 915 (52%) patients (P < .001). Tricuspid valve surgery was added to 1393 (24%) MV repairs and to 561 (32%) MV replacements (P < .001). The crude actuarial 5-year survival was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70%-72%) in the repair group and 66% (95% CI, 63%-68%) in the replacement group (P < .001). MV replacement was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.17-1.49) (P < .001) in Cox regression modeling. In the propensity-matched cohort (1105 pairs), the long-term mortality was also significantly higher in the replacement group (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.45; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Repair of secondary mitral regurgitation has an associated survival benefit compared with MV replacement.