Mitral valve repair and replacement in endocarditis: a systematic review of literature

Abstract

Background: Several observational studies have suggested a superior survival after mitral valve repair compared with replacement in patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis. The objective of this study was to systematically review the rate of morbidity and mortality associated with mitral valve repair or replacement in infective endocarditis.

Methods: A Medline search was conducted for literature and a systematic review of 24 studies, reporting prognosis of patients who underwent surgery for mitral valve endocarditis, was performed. Information on the patients, type of surgery, and follow-up was abstracted using standardized protocols.

Results: A total of 470 patients (39%) underwent mitral valve repair and 724 patients (61%) underwent valve replacement. Lower in-hospital mortality (2.3% versus 14.4%, relative risk: 0.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.30, p < 0.0001) and long-term mortality (7.8% versus 40.5%, relative risk: 0.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.29, p < 0.0001) were observed among patients undergoing mitral valve repair compared with replacement. In addition, the rates of early reoperation (2.2% versus 12.7%, p < 0.0001), early cerebrovascular events (4.7% versus 11.5%, p = 0.045), late reoperation (4.7% versus 8.7%, p = 0.039), late recurrent endocarditis (1.8% versus 7.3%, p = 0.0013), and late cerebrovascular events (1.6% versus 24.4%, p < 0.0001) were significantly lower after mitral valve repair. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that mitral valve repair over replacement was associated with a better early and late prognosis after surgery. Male sex and acute surgery were (nonsignificantly) predictive of worse early outcome.

Conclusions: A systematic review of literature showed that mitral valve repair is associated with good clinical in-hospital and long-term results among patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis.