Mitral valve repair versus replacement with preservation of the entire subvalvular apparatus
- 60 Downloads
This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of mitral valve (MV) repair versus MV replacement with preservation of the entire subvalvular apparatus.
We retrospectively searched our dedicated in-hospital database for patients who underwent MV surgery between 2012 and 2017.
A total of 82 patients were divided into a group that underwent MV replacement (n = 35) and a group that underwent MV repair (n = 47). Patients undergoing MV replacement were significantly older (p < 0.01). Mortality at 30 days was not significantly different [MV replacement: n = 1 (2.9%), MV repair: n = 0 (0%); p = 0.43]. The single case of 30-day mortality after MV replacement was due to acute aortic dissection. The total cohort did not show significant differences in long-term survival (p = 0.07). There were no cardiac-related deaths in this cohort. Postoperative left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (MV replacement: 45.4 ± 6.2 mm, MV repair: 45.6 ± 5.8 mm; p = 0.89), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (MV replacement: 29.6 ± 7.1 mm, MV repair: 29.4 ± 5.2 mm; p = 0.89), and ejection fraction (MV replacement: 59.2 ± 11.4%, MV repair: 62.0 ± 6.8%; p = 0.17) were not significantly different.
This study found that MV replacement had operative mortality, long-term survival, and complication rates similar to those of MV repair. There were no cardiac-related deaths in this cohort. MV replacement with preservation of the entire subvalvular apparatus does not seem to be inferior to MV repair.
KeywordsMitral valve repair Mitral valve replacement Subvalvular apparatus preservation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no funding source, no conflicts, and no competing interests.
- 4.Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:e650.Google Scholar
- 5.Lazam S, Vanoverschelde J-L, Tribouilloy C, Grigioni F, Suri RM, Avierinos J-F, et al. Twenty-year outcome after mitral repair versus replacement for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation: analysis of a large, prospective, multicenter, international registry. Circulation. 2017;135:410–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Mori T, Asano M, Ohtake H, Bitoh A, Sekiguchi S, Matsuo Y, et al. Anticoagulant therapy after prosthetic valve replacement -optimal PT-INR in Japanese patients-. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;8(8):3–7.Google Scholar
- 7.Uetsuka Y, Hosoda S, Kasanuki H, Aosaki M, Murasaki K, Ooki K, et al. Optimal therapeutic range for oral anticoagulants in Japanese patients with prosthetic heart valves: a preliminary report from a single institution using conversion from thrombotest to PT-INR. Heart Vessels. 2000;15:124–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Silaschi M, Chaubey S, Aldalati O, Khan H, Uzzaman MM, Singh M, et al. Is mitral valve repair superior to mitral valve replacement in elderly patients? Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016: e003605.Google Scholar
- 14.Watanabe T, Arai H, Nagaoka E, Oi K, Hachimaru T, Kuroki H, et al. Influence of procedural differences on mitral valve configuration after surgical repair for functional mitral regurgitation: in which direction should the papillary muscle be relocated? J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;9:185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Neville PH, Aupart MR, Diemont FF, Sirinelli AL, Lemoine EM, Marchand MA. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic or mitral position: a 12-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 66; S14307.Google Scholar