Search

Background Despite the superiority of mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement for degenerative disease, repair rates vary widely across centers. Traveling to a mitral reference center (MRC) is 1 way to increase the odds of MVr. This study assessed the economic value (quality/cost) and long-term outcomes of distant referral to an MRC. Methods Among 746 mitral surgery patients between January 2011 and June 2013, low-risk patients with an ejection fraction greater than 40% undergoing isolated degenerative MVr were identified and included 26 out-of-state (DISTANT) and 104 in-state patients (LOCAL). Short- and long-term outcomes and institutional financial data (including travel expenses) were used to compare groups. National average and MRC-specific MVr rates, clinical outcomes, and marginal value of quality-adjusted life-years collected from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and Medicare estimates were used to perform a nationally representative cost-benefit analysis for distant referral. Results Age, ejection fraction, operative time, blood transfusions, and annuloplasty ring size did not differ between groups. Median charges were $76,022 for LOCAL and $74,171 for DISTANT (P = .35), whereas median payments (including travel expenses) were $57,795 for LOCAL and $58,477 for DISTANT (P = .70). Short- and long-term outcomes were similar between groups and median follow-up was 7.1 years. Estimated 5-year survival was 97% (96% for LOCAL and 100% for DISTANT; P = .24). Cost-benefit analysis showed a net benefit through distant referral to an MRC ranging from $436 to $6078 to the payer and $22,163 to $30,067 to the patient, combining for an estimated $22,599 to $32,528 societal benefit. Conclusions These data suggest that distant referral to an MRC is achievable and reasonable.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery; however, antiarrhythmic strategies have not lowered the rate of POAF. This study aimed to identify specific gene transcripts of atrial inflammation, inflammatory handling, and oxidative stress associated with POAF. Left atrial tissue was obtained from 50 patients undergoing intended degenerative mitral repair who did not have any of the following risk factors for POAF: history of atrial fibrillation or other arrhythmia, left atrial diameter greater than 6.0 cm, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%. Postoperative outcomes and left atrial tissue messenger ribonucleuc acid (mRNA) levels were recorded. Parametric 2-sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used to evaluate for statistical significance in comparing POAF and non-POAF groups. Within 30 days of surgery, 19 of 50 of patients (38%) developed POAF. There were no significant preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative differences between POAF and non-POAF patients. In the tissue transcriptome analysis, POAF patients were found to have a worse preoperative inflammatory state with higher levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha, Interleukin-6, and nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells mRNA, worse inflammatory handling capacity with lower levels of nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells inhibitor mRNA, and reduced antioxidant defenses with lower levels of glutathione synthetase, glutathione reductase, and mitochondrial superoxide dismutase 2 mRNA. This study found POAF patients to have preoperative left atrial tissue profiles suggestive of more inflammation, worse inflammatory handling, and reduced antioxidant defenses against oxidative stress. Investigation of therapies targeted to the tissue-specific inflammatory transcriptome of POAF patients is warranted.

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is a cardiac pathology that causes the mitral valve to malfunction, leading to mitral regurgitation (MR). The optimal strategy for FMR remains unclear, and FMR outcomes are poor. All etiologies of FMR might not be the same, and subdividing patients with FMR caused by atrial (AFMR) versus ventricular FMR pathology might be important. Herein, we present outcomes of patients with AFMR to define this "new" population.Data of patients who underwent mitral valve repair for MR from 2000 to 2020 were reviewed. Patients with degenerative/myxomatous disease, ejection fraction50% (ventricular FMR), and miscellaneous etiologies including endocarditis and rheumatic disease were excluded to isolate a population of "pure" AFMR patients. Descriptive characteristics and outcomes data were analyzed.Among 123 total AFMR patients, mean preoperative left atrial dimensions were enlarged to 4.9 (95% CI, 4.7-5.0) cm, whereas mean preoperative left ventricular diastolic dimensions remained near normal at 5.0 (95% CI, 4.9-5.2) cm. Preoperative atrial fibrillation was noted in 61% (74/123). Echocardiogram was performed in 58% (71/123) of patients at a median of 569 (interquartile range, 75-1782) days after surgery. Of those, 72% (51/71) had trivial or no MR, 22% (16/71) mild, and only 6% (4/71) moderate or greater MR. Only 1.6% (2/123) required redo mitral valve reoperation. Estimated 5-year survival was 74%.Patients with AFMR do well after mitral valve repair using an annuloplasty ring, with low rates of reoperation, mortality, and recurrence of MR. Mitral annuloplasty should be considered the surgical therapy of choice for AFMR.

Severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) increases surgical complexity and is independently associated with increased operative mortality for mitral valve replacement (MVR). Recently we adopted ultrasonic emulsification/aspiration for annular decalcification to address these risks and describe our early experience with this new technology.Excluding previous mitral valve surgery or endocarditis, 179 patients with MAC underwent MVR at a single institution between January 2015 and March 2020. Of these, 15 consecutive patients with severe MAC (≥50% of the annulus) underwent annular decalcification with ultrasonic emulsification/aspiration as an adjunct treatment during MVR from April 2019 to March 2020.Mean patient age was 68 ± 12 years, and 72% (n = 128) were female. Mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 60% ± 11%, and mean mitral valve gradient was 9.1 ± 4.4 mm Hg. Concomitant procedures included antiarrhythmia (n = 52), aortic valve replacement (n = 32), and coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 20). There were no operative deaths or strokes in the group undergoing ultrasonic emulsification and aspiration.The use of ultrasonic emulsification and aspiration in severe MAC patients may help mitigate the risks of MVR and facilitate operative success in this challenging, high-risk population.

Mitral repair (MVr) is superior to replacement for degenerative disease; however, its benefit is less established for endocarditis. We report outcomes of repair or replacement for mitral/tricuspid endocarditis and identify predictors of MVr. Patients undergoing first-time surgery for mitral (n = 260) or tricuspid (n = 71) endocarditis between 1992 to 2018 were identified. Patients with aortic endocarditis were excluded. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcome was MVr. Patients were stratified into active and treated endocarditis separately for mitral and tricuspid groups. Predictors of MVr were assessed through multivariable logistic regression and adjusted likelihood of MVr through marginal effects estimates. A mitral specialist was defined by performing ≥25 annual degenerative MVr. Among 331 patients, 70% (181/260) of those with mitral valve endocarditis and 52% (37/71) of those with tricuspid endocarditis underwent repair. The MVr group compared with replacement had a higher proportion of elective acuity and less diabetes, hypertension, active endocarditis, cardiogenic shock, and dialysis. Estimated 5-year survival did not differ between repair versus replacement for active mitral (68 ± 14% vs 60 ± 14%, P = 0.34) or tricuspid endocarditis (60 ± 17% vs 61 ± 19%, P = 0.67), but was superior after repair for treated mitral endocarditis (86 ± 7% vs 51 ± 24%, P = 0.014). Independent predictors of mortality included dialysis for active and treated mitral endocarditis, and mitral replacement (vs MVr) for treated mitral endocarditis. The likelihood of MVr was 82 ± 5% for mitral specialists and 47 ± 9% for non-specialists (P0.001). MVr for endocarditis should be pursued, if feasible. Importantly, achieving MVr was driven not only by patient factors, but also surgeon experience.

For degenerative mitral disease, repair is superior to replacement; however, the best operative strategy for rheumatic mitral disease remains unclear. We evaluated the association between decision-making in choosing repair versus replacement and outcomes across 2 decades of rheumatic mitral surgery.Patients undergoing isolated, first-time rheumatic mitral surgery were identified. Era 1 (1997-2008) and Era 2 (2009-2018) were distinguished by intraoperative assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification (Era 2) in deciding between mitral repair versus replacement. Primary outcome was a composite of death, reoperation, and severe valve dysfunction.Among 180 patients, age was 59 ± 14 years, and ejection fraction was 58% ± 10%. A higher proportion in Era 1 (n = 56) compared with Era 2 (n = 124) had preoperative atrial fibrillation (68% vs 46%; P = .006); the groups were otherwise similar. Primary indication was mitral stenosis in 69% (124 out of 180; pure = 35, mixed = 89) and did not differ by era (P = .67). During Era 1, 70% (39 out of 56) underwent repair, compared with 33% (41 out of 124) during Era 2 (P .001). Freedom from death, reoperation, or severe valve dysfunction at 5 years was higher in Era 2 (72% ± 9%) than Era 1 (54% ± 13%; P = .04). Five-year survival was higher in Era 2 than Era 1, but did not differ between repair versus replacement. Five-year cumulative incidence of reoperation with death as a competing risk did not differ by era, but was higher after repair than replacement.Careful assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification to determine mitral repair or replacement was associated with improved outcomes. This decision-making strategy may alter the threshold for rheumatic mitral replacement in the current valve-in-valve era.

Objective Mitral valve repair is superior to replacement for degenerative disease, but long-term outcomes of anterior versus posterior leaflet repair remain poorly defined. We propensity matched anterior and posterior repairs to compare long-term outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing first-time degenerative mitral repair between 1992 and 2018 were identified. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural residual mitral regurgitation and reoperation. From 1025 patients, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, yielding 309 anterior (isolated anterior = 85, bileaflet = 224) and 309 isolated posterior repairs. Results Age was 58 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 57% ± 10%, and matched groups were well balanced. Anterior repairs had longer bypass (122 ± 53 vs 109 ± 43 minutes, P = .001) and crossclamp (94 ± 44 vs 85 ± 62 minutes, P = .033) times. Mean residual mitral regurgitation grade was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.65) for anterior repair and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) for posterior repair (P = .31). Overall, 92% (569/618) of matched patients had no residual mitral regurgitation, with no differences in mitral regurgitation grade between groups (P = .77). Survival did not differ between anterior (10 years: 72% ± 7%; 15 years: 63% ± 7%) and posterior (10 years: 74% ± 7%; 15 years: 60% ± 8%) groups (log-rank P = .93). Linearized incidence of reoperation was 0.62% per patient-year, including 0.74% for anterior and 0.48% for posterior repairs. Cumulative incidence of reoperation at 15 years was 7.5% after anterior repair and 4.9% after posterior repair (Gray's test P = .26). Conclusions No long-term survival or reoperation difference was found between posterior and anterior repair. On the basis of these findings, surgeons at centers of excellence should aim for repair of both anterior and posterior leaflet pathology with the same decision-making threshold over valve replacement for degenerative mitral disease.

Background Despite guideline recommendations, rates of concomitant tricuspid valve repair are suboptimal, possibly due to fear of complications. We reviewed morbidity, mortality, recurrent tricuspid regurgitation, and right ventricular remodeling after guideline-directed concomitant tricuspid valve repair. Methods We performed guideline-directed concomitant tricuspid valve repair on 171 consecutive patients who underwent left-sided valve surgery (degenerative mitral surgery or aortic valve replacement) between May 2012 and March 2016. Exclusion criteria included functional mitral regurgitation, rheumatic disease, active endocarditis, and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or complex aortic surgery. Results Mean age was 68 ± 12 years, and 47% (81 of 171) were women. Preoperative atrial fibrillation was present in 57% (98 of 171), and preoperative tricuspid regurgitation was moderate or higher in 64% (108 of 171). The rate of de novo pacemaker placement was 4.1% (7 of 171), and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% (1 of 171). Estimated survival was 95% ± 4% at 1 year and 92% ± 5% at 5 years. Freedom from moderate or worse residual/recurrent tricuspid regurgitation was 93% ± 6% at 6 months and 89% ± 8% at 3 years. Quantitative echocardiography found no significant increase in right ventricular dimensions or area at 1 year in subgroup analysis. Mean echocardiographic follow-up was 14.1 months, and mean clinical follow-up was 33.9 months. Conclusions Guideline-directed concomitant tricuspid valve repair resulted in excellent safety end points and survival. At 14 months, freedom from moderate or worse tricuspid regurgitation was high, right ventricular performance did not worsen, and the pacemaker rate was comparable to rates after isolated mitral repair. Given these findings, adherence to current guidelines regarding functional tricuspid regurgitation should be encouraged.