Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP).
From 1977 to 2000, 379 patients underwent DVR (n = 299) or AVR + MVP (n = 80). Actuarial survival and freedom from reoperation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential predictors of mortality and reoperation were entered into a Cox multiple regression model. Propensity score was introduced for the multivariable regression modeling for adjustment of a selection bias.
Survival 15 years after surgery was similar between the groups (DVR, 81% +/- 3%; AVR + MVP, 79% +/- 7%; p = 0.44). Freedom from thromboembolic event at 15 years was similar between the groups (p = 0.25). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 15 years was significantly better for the DVR group (54% +/- 5%) as compared with the AVR + MVP group (15% +/- 6%; p = 0.0006), primarily due to progression of mitral valve pathology and early structural deterioration of bioprosthetic aortic valve used for patients with AVR + MVP. After AVR + MVP, freedom from mitral reoperation at 15 years was 63% +/- 16% for nonrheumatic heart diseases, and 5% +/- 5% for rheumatic disease (p = 0.04).
Although both DVR and AVR + MVP provided excellent survival, DVR with mechanical valves should be the procedure of choice for the majority of patients because of lower incidence of valve failure and similar rate of thromboembolic complications compared with AVR + MVP. MVP should not be performed in patients with rheumatic disease because of higher incidence of late failure.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Double valve replacement for concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Excellent results with valve repair in isolated mitral valve lesions have been reported; therefore, whether its potential benefits would translate into better outcomes in patients with combined mitral-aortic disease was investigated. A retrospective observational study was performed involving 341 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with either mitral valve repair (n=42) or double valve replacement (n=299). Data were analyzed for early mortality, late valve-related complications and survival. The early mortality rate was 11.9% for valve repair and 11.0% for replacement (P=0.797). Survival (± SD) was 67±11% in mitral valve repair with aortic valve replacement and 81±3% in double valve replacement at five years of follow-up (P=0.187). The percentage of patients who did not experience major adverse valve-related events at five years of follow-up was 83±9% in those who underwent mitral valve repair with aortic valve replacement and 89±2% in patients who underwent double valve replacement (P=0.412). Age >70 years (HR 2.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.9]; P=0.023) and renal dysfunction (HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.7]; P=0.01) were independent predictors of decreased survival. In patients with double valve disease, both mitral valve repair and replacement provided comparable early outcomes. There were no significant differences in valve-related reoperations, anticoagulation-related complications or prosthetic valve endocarditis. Patient-related factors appear to be the major determinant of late survival, irrespective of the type of operation.Experimental and clinical cardiology 01/2013; 18(1):22-26. · 1.10 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the follow-up results of double valve replacement (DVR) i.e. mitral valve replacement (MVR) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) vs. isolated MVR or AVR for rheumatic heart disease. An interventional qausi-experimental study. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore, from September 1994 till December 2007. Prospective follow-up of 493 patients with mechanical heart valves was carried out using clinical assessment, international normalized ratio and echocardiography. Patients were divided into three groups: group I having MVR, group II having AVR and group III having DVR. Survival, time and causes of mortality, and frequency of valve thrombosis, haemorrhage and cerebrovascular haemorrhage was noted in the three groups and described as proportions. Actuarial survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. There were 493 with 287 (58.3%) in group I, 87 (17.6%) in group II and 119 (24.1%) in group III. Total follow-up was 2429.2 patient (pt)-years. Of 77 (15.6%) deaths, 19 (3.8%) were in-hospital and 58 (11.8%) were late. In-hospital mortality was highest 4 (4.6%) in group II followed by 5 (4.2%) group III and 10 (3.5%) group I. Late deaths were 39 (13.4%) in group I, 9 (10.2%) in group II and 10 (8.3%) in group III. The total actuarial survival was 84.4% with survival of 83%, 85.1%, 87.4% in groups I, II and III respectively. On follow-up valve thrombosis occurred in 12 (0.49%/pt-years) patients; 9 (0.67%/pt-years) group I, 1 (0.22%/pt-years) in group II and 2 (0.31%/pt-years) in group III. Severe haemorrhage occurred in 19 (0.78%/pt-years); 14 in (1.04%/pt-years) in group I, 3 (0.66%/pt-years) group II and 2 (0.31%/pt-years) in group III. Cerebrovascular accidents occurred in 34 (1.3%/pt-years); 26 (1.95%/pt-years) in group I and 4 in groups II (0.89%/pt-years) and III (0.62%/pt-years) each. In patients with rheumatic heart disease having combined mitral and aortic valve disease DVR should be performed whenever indicated as it has similar in-hospital mortality and better late survival as compared to isolated aortic or mitral valve replacement.Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP 01/2011; 21(1):9-14. · 0.30 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether to repair or replace the mitral valve for patients with significant mitral regurgitation undergoing aortic valve replacement is still controversial. From January 1990 to December 2011, a total of 663 patients underwent aortic valve replacement combined with mitral valve surgery. Among these, 253 patients (mean age 55.9 ± 14.5 years, 91 females) with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation were enrolled to compare the outcomes between double valve replacement (DVR group, n = 158) and aortic valve replacement plus mitral valve repair (AVR plus MVr group, n = 95). Survival and valve-related events were compared by the inverse-probability-treatment-weighted method using propensity scores to reduce treatment selection bias. Early mortality was similar between the groups (1.9% in the DVR group when compared with 3.2% in the AVR plus MVr group, P = 0.55). During the mean follow-up period of 72.1 ± 56.7 months, 45 patients died (28 in DVR and 17 in AVR plus MVr) and 31 experienced valve-related events including valve reoperation in 11, anticoagulation-related bleeding in 14, thromboembolism complications in 9 and infective endocarditis in 3. After adjustment for baseline risk profiles, the DVR group showed no difference with regard to risks of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-4.01; P = 0.16) and valve-related events (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.40-3.30; P = 0.80) compared with the AVR plus MVr group. Although the outcomes of either mitral valve repair or replacement for moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement show no statistical significance in terms of long-term survival and valve-related event rates, DVR seems more hazardous than AVR plus MVr based on the estimated HR in terms of survival.Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 09/2013; · 1.11 Impact Factor