Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct;162(4):1087-1096.e3.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.11.148. Epub 2020 Mar 5.

Anterior versus posterior leaflet mitral valve repair: A propensity-matched analysis

Alexander A Brescia  1 , Tessa M F Watt  2 , Liza M Rosenbloom  2 , Shannon L Murray  2 , Xiaoting Wu  2 , Matthew A Romano  2 , Steven F Bolling  2 ; Michigan Mitral Research Group  2
Affiliations

Anterior versus posterior leaflet mitral valve repair: A propensity-matched analysis

Alexander A Brescia et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: Mitral valve repair is superior to replacement for degenerative disease, but long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior leaflet repair remain poorly defined. We propensity matched anterior and posterior repairs to compare long-term outcomes.

Methods: Patients undergoing first-time degenerative mitral repair between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural residual mitral regurgitation and reoperation. From 1025 patients, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, yielding 309 anterior (isolated anterior = 85, bileaflet = 224) and 309 isolated posterior repairs.

Results: Age was 58 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 57% ± 10%, and matched groups were well balanced. Anterior repairs had longer bypass (122 ± 53 vs 109 ± 43 minutes, P = .001) and crossclamp (94 ± 44 vs 85 ± 62 minutes, P = .033) times. Mean residual mitral regurgitation grade was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.65) for anterior repair and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) for posterior repair (P = .31). Overall, 92% (569/618) of matched patients had no residual mitral regurgitation, with no differences in mitral regurgitation grade between groups (P = .77). Survival did not differ between anterior (10 years: 72% ± 7%; 15 years: 63% ± 7%) and posterior (10 years: 74% ± 7%; 15 years: 60% ± 8%) groups (log-rank P = .93). Linearized incidence of reoperation was 0.62% per patient-year, including 0.74% for anterior and 0.48% for posterior repairs. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 15 years was 7.5% after anterior repair and 4.9% after posterior repair (Gray's test P = .26).

Conclusions: No long-term survival or reoperation difference was found between posterior and anterior repair. On the basis of these findings, surgeons at centers of excellence should aim for repair of both anterior and posterior leaflet pathology with the same decision-making threshold over valve replacement for degenerative mitral disease.

Keywords: anterior leaflet; bileaflet; degenerative mitral repair; mitral repair; mitral replacement; mitral valve.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram of patient population.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Overall survival Kaplan-Meier estimates of anterior vs. posterior leaflet mitral valve repair. A) Overall unmatched population (n=1025) of anterior (n=309) vs. posterior (n=716) mitral repair (log-rank p=0.08). B) Propensity-matched population of anterior (n=309) vs. posterior (n=309) mitral repair (log-rank p=0.93).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cumulative incidence of reoperation with death as a competing risk after anterior vs. posterior mitral valve repair. A) Cumulative incidence of reoperation among propensity-matched patients. B) 2-year landmarked analysis of cumulative incidence of reoperation among propensity-matched patients. CI, confidence interval; SHR, subhazard ratio.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 2006;368:1005–11. - PubMed
    1. Shuhaiber J, Anderson RJ. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;31:267–75. - PubMed
    1. Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, Nowicki ER, Slisatkorn W, Al-Dossari G, Johnston DR, et al.Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:885–93, 893.e1–2. - PubMed
    1. Vassileva CM, McNeely C, Spertus J, Markwell S, Hazelrigg S. Hospital volume, mitral repair rates, and mortality in mitral valve surgery in the elderly: an analysis of US hospitals treating Medicare fee-for-service patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:762–8.e1. - PubMed
    1. Mohty D, Orszulak TA, Schaff HV, Avierinos JF, Tajik JA, Enriquez-Sarano M. Very long-term survival and durability of mitral valve repair for mitral valve prolapse. Circulation 2001;104:I1–7. - PubMed

MeSH terms