Noirhomme, Philippe

Background: Mitral valve (MV) repair is preferred over replacement in clinical guidelines and is an important determinant of the indication for surgery in degenerative mitral regurgitation. However, the level of evidence supporting current recommendations is low, and recent data cast doubts on its validity in the current era. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to analyze very long-term outcome after MV repair and replacement for degenerative mitral regurgitation with a flail leaflet. Methods: MIDA (Mitral Regurgitation International Database) is a multicenter registry enrolling patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation with a flail leaflet in 6 tertiary European and US centers. We analyzed the outcome after MV repair (n=1709) and replacement (n=213) overall, by propensity score matching, and by inverse probability-of-treatment weighting. Results: At baseline, patients undergoing MV repair were younger, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to present with a posterior leaflet prolapse than those undergoing MV replacement. After propensity score matching and inverse probability-of-treatment weighting, the 2 treatments groups were balanced, and absolute standardized differences were usually <10%, indicating adequate match. Operative mortality (defined as a death occurring within 30 days from surgery or during the same hospitalization) was lower after MV repair than after replacement in both the entire population (1.3% versus 4.7%; P <0.001) and the propensity-matched population (0.2% versus 4.4%; P <0.001). During a mean follow-up of 9.2 years, 552 deaths were observed, of which 207 were of cardiovascular origin. Twenty-year survival was better after MV repair than after MV replacement in both the entire population (46% versus 23%; P <0.001) and the matched population (41% versus 24%; P <0.001). Similar superiority of MV repair was obtained in patient subsets on the basis of age, sex, or any stratification criteria (all P <0.001). MV repair was also associated with reduced incidence of reoperations and valve-related complications. Conclusions: Among patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation with a flail leaflet referred to mitral surgery, MV repair was associated with lower operative mortality, better long-term survival, and fewer valve-related complications compared with MV replacement.

Objective To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach. Results No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed to-mographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs. Conclusions Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.