Open AccessIs Mitral Valve Repair Superior to Mitral Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients? Comparison of Short‐ and Long‐Term Outcomes in a Propensity‐Matched Cohort
Author(s) -
Silaschi Miriam,
Chaubey Sanjay,
Aldalati Omar,
Khan Habib,
Uzzaman Mohammed Mohsin,
Singh Mrinal,
Baghai Max,
Deshpande Ranjit,
Wendler Olaf
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of the american heart association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.494
H-Index - 85
ISSN - 2047-9980
DOI - 10.1161/jaha.116.003605
Subject(s) - medicine , mitral valve repair , surgery , mitral valve , aortic valve replacement , concomitant , cardiology , mitral valve replacement , endocarditis , coronary artery disease , survival rate , valve replacement , propensity score matching , stenosis
Background Because of demographic changes, a growing number of elderly patients present with mitral valve ( MV ) disease. Although mitral valve repair ( MV ‐repair) is the “gold standard” treatment for MV disease, in elderly patients, there is controversy about whether MV ‐repair is superior to mitral valve replacement. We reviewed results after MV surgery in elderly patients treated over the past 20 years. Methods and Results Our in‐hospital database was explored for patients who underwent MV surgery between 1994 and 2015. Survival data, obtained from the National Health Service central register, were complete for all patients. Of 1776 patients with MV disease, 341 were aged ≥75 years. Patients with repeat cardiac surgery, endocarditis, and concomitant aortic valve replacement were excluded. This yielded 221 MV ‐repair and 120 mitral valve replacement patients. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 135 patients (39.6%) and tricuspid valve surgery in 50 patients (14.7%). Thirty‐day mortality was 5.4% ( MV ‐repair) versus 9.2% (mitral valve replacement, P =0.26). Overall 1‐ and 5‐year survival was 90.7%, 74.2% versus 81.3%, 61.0% ( P <0.01). Median survival after MV ‐repair was 7.8 years, close to 8.5 years (95% CI : 8.2–9.4) in the age‐matched UK population (ratio 0.9). Rate of re‐operation for MV ‐dysfunction was 2.3% versus 2.5% (mitral valve replacement, P =1.0). After propensity matching, patients after MV ‐repair still had improved survival at 1, 2, and 5 years (93.4%, 91.6%, 76.9% versus 77.2%, 75.2%, 58.7%, P =0.03). Conclusions Excellent outcomes can be achieved after MV surgery in elderly patients. Long‐term survival is superior after MV ‐repair and the re‐operation rate is low. MV ‐repair should be the preferred surgical approach in elderly patients.