English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV) and valve‐in‐ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo‐MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo‐MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty‐two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo‐MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30‐day mortality. MVIV resulted in &gt;95% procedural success with 30‐day and 1‐year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%–6%), valve migration (0%–9%), and residual regurgitation (0%–6%). Comparisons of redo‐MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year,P =0.92), albeit higher rates of major bleeding and arrhythmias with redo‐MVR. MVIR resulted in 0% to 34% mortality at 1 year, whereas both redo‐MVr and MVR for failed repairs were performed with minimal mortality and durable long‐term results. MVIV is therefore a viable alternative to redo‐MVR for structural valve degeneration, whereas redo‐MVr or redo‐MVR is preferred for failed MVr given the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, not all patients will be candidates for MVIV/MVIR because anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from adequately addressing the underlying pathology.

Reoperative Mitral Surgery Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review