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 Feb;9(3):204.
doi: 10.21037/atm-20-3542.

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis

Yefan Jiang  1 , Chen Wang  1 , Geng Li  1 , Si Chen  1
Affiliations

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis

Yefan Jiang et al. Ann Transl Med. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Background: The clinical outcome of mitral valve repair (MVP) is considerably more favorable than that of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with degenerative mitral disease. However, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is still the predominant cause of mitral valve surgery in developing countries and the advantages of MVP in RHD have still not been definitely proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was thus to evaluate the suitability of MVP in patients with RHD. Considering the difference between mechanical and biological valves, we distinguished them from each other and compared them with MVP individually.

Methods: A comparison of clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients with RHD was performed based on clinical trial data. Relevant articles published from January 1, 1990 until March 1, 2020 were identified in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI). Studies that lacked direct comparisons between MVP and MVR were excluded.

Results: A total of 16 studies with 8659 patients were included in the analysis. The MVP group displayed lower early and long-term mortality, and fewer valve-related events and major adverse events. However, this patient group required more reoperations compared with the MVR group. Similar results were observed after distinguishing between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves to compare MVP with MVR (mech-valves), but no statistically significant difference was identified in the reoperation rate between MVP and MVR (bio-valves). MVP was further associated with increased risk of mitral reoperation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery but without any improved early and long-term survival.

Conclusions: MVP and MVR are beneficial for patients with RHD. For skilled surgeons, MVP can be performed for some suitable patients with RHD and is preferred for elderly patients or patients with contraindications of anticoagulation. However, MVR is more appropriate when concomitant AVR is needed.

Keywords: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD); clinical outcomes; meta-analysis; mitral valve repair (MVP); mitral valve replacement (MVR).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3542), and report grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81700339), grants from Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (2017CFB647), during the conduct of the study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flowchart outlining the literature search process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis for early mortality. (A) MVP vs. MVR; (B) MVP vs. MVR (mech-valves); (C) MVP vs. MVR (bio-valves). MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis for long-term survival. (A) MVP vs. MVR; (B) MVP vs. MVR (mech-valves); (C) MVP vs. MVR (bio-valves). MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis for freedom from reoperation. (A) MVP vs. MVR; (B) MVP vs. MVR (mech-valves); (C) MVP vs. MVR (bio-valves). MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Meta-analysis for freedom from valve-related events. (A) MVP vs. MVR; (B) MVP vs. MVR (mech-valves); (C) MVP vs. MVR (bio-valves). MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meta-analysis for freedom from major adverse events between MVP and MVR. MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison between MVP and MVR in patients with AVR. (A) Early mortality; (B) long-term survival; (C) freedom from reoperation. MVP, mitral valve repair; MVR, mitral valve replacement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Geldenhuys A, Koshy JJ, Human PA, et al. Rheumatic Mitral Repair Versus Replacement in a Threshold Country: The Impact of Commissural Fusion. J Heart Valve Dis 2012;21:424-32. - PubMed
    1. Sarris GE, Cahill PD, Hansen DE, et al. Restoration of left ventricular systolic performance after reattachment of the mitral chordae tendineae. The importance of valvular-ventricular interaction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988;95:969-79. 10.1016/S0022-5223(19)35662-4 - DOI - 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. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.11.014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saurav A, Alla VM, Kaushik M, et al. Outcomes of mitral valve repair compared with replacement in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve surgery: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015;48:347-53. 10.1093/ejcts/ezu421 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim YH, Czer LS, Soukiasian HJ, et al. Ischemic mitral regurgitation: revascularization alone versus revascularization and mitral valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:1895-901. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.11.005 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources