Outcome of patients with double valve surgery between 2009 and 2018 at University Hospital Basel, Switzerland

Martin L Egger, Brigitta Gahl, Luca Koechlin, Lena Schömig, Peter Matt, Oliver Reuthebuch, Friedrich S Eckstein, Martin T R Grapow, Martin L Egger, Brigitta Gahl, Luca Koechlin, Lena Schömig, Peter Matt, Oliver Reuthebuch, Friedrich S Eckstein, Martin T R Grapow

Abstract

Background: In isolated mitral valve regurgitation general consensus on surgery is to favor repair over replacement excluding rheumatic etiology or endocarditis. If concomitant aortic valve replacement is performed however, clinical evidence is more ambiguous and no explicit guidelines exist on the choice of mitral valve treatment. Both, double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement in combination with concomitant mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP) have been proven to be feasible procedures. In our single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study, we compared the outcome of these two surgical techniques focusing on mortality and morbidity.

Methods: 89 patients underwent DVR (n = 41) or AVR + MVP (n = 48) in our institution between 2009 and 2018. Follow-up data was collected using electronic patient records, by contacting treating physicians and by telephone interviews. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyze mortality during follow-up and Cox regression to investigate potential predictors of mortality.

Results: During a median follow-up duration of 4.5 [IQR 2.9 to 6.1] years, there was no significant difference in mortality between both cohorts. Thirty days mortality was 6.3% in the DVR and 7% in the AVR + MVP cohort. Overall mortality amounted to 17% for DVR and 23% for AVR + MVP. DVR was the preferred procedure for valve disease of rheumatic etiology and for endocarditis, while in degenerative valves AVR + MVP was predominant. More biological valves were used in the AVR + MVP cohort (p < 0.001) and more mechanical valves were implanted in the DVR cohort. The rate of rehospitalization, deterioration of left ventricular ejection fraction and postoperative complications were equally distributed among the two cohorts.

Conclusion: Our data analysis showed that both DVR and AVR + MVP are safe and feasible options for double valve surgery. Based on our findings we could not prove superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Choosing the appropriate procedure for the patient should be influenced by valve etiology, patients' comorbidities and the surgeons' experience.

Trial registration: This was a retrospectively registered trial, registered on April 1st 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03667274.

Keywords: Double valve replacement; Mitral valve repair; Mitral valve replacement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of included patients
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Etiology of mitral valve disease in our patient cohort
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for DVR and AVR + MVP
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Kaplan–Meier survival estimates for DVR versus AVR + MVP in patients with degenerative mitral etiology

References

    1. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines | Elsevier Enhanced Reader [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 8].
    1. Enriquez-Sarano M, Schaff HV, Orszulak TA, Tajik AJ, Bailey KR, Frye RL. Valve repair improves the outcome of surgery for mitral regurgitation. A multivariate analysis. Circulation. 1995;91(4):1022–1028. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.91.4.1022.
    1. Nakano K, Koyanagi H, Hashimoto A, Kitamura M, Endo M, Nagashima M, et al. Twelve years’ experience with the St. Jude Medical valve prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57(3):697–703. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(94)90570-3.
    1. Brown PS, Roberts CS, McIntosh CL, Swain JA, Clark RE. Relation between choice of prostheses and late outcome in double-valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;55(3):631–640. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)90266-K.
    1. Talwar S, Mathur A, Choudhary SK, Singh R, Kumar AS. Aortic Valve Replacement With Mitral Valve Repair Compared With Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84(4):1219–1225. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.04.115.
    1. Hamamoto M, Bando K, Kobayashi J, Satoh T, Sasako Y, Niwaya K, et al. Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(1):28–33. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04405-3.
    1. Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, Cosgrove DM, White J, Kerr P, Marullo A, et al. Mitral valve repair with aortic valve replacement is superior to double valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125(6):1372–1387. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(02)73225-X.
    1. Leavitt BJ, Baribeau YR, DiScipio AW, Ross CS, Quinn RD, Olmstead EM, et al. Outcomes of patients undergoing concomitant aortic and mitral valve surgery in northern new England. Circulation. 2009;120(11 Suppl):S155–162.
    1. Unger P, Tti PL, Cannière DD. The clinical challenge of concomitant aortic and mitral valve stenosis. Acta Cardiol. 2016;71(1):3–6. doi: 10.1080/AC.71.1.3132091.
    1. Unger P, Pibarot P, Tribouilloy C, Lancellotti P, Maisano F, Iung B, et al. Multiple and Mixed Valvular Heart Diseases: Pathophysiology, Imaging, and Management. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(8):e007862. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.007862.
    1. Roques F, Nashef SAM, Michel P, Gauducheau E, de Vincentiis C, Baudet E, et al. Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patientsq. Thorac Surg. 1999;8.
    1. Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, Kouchoukos NT, Blackstone EH, Grunkemeier GL, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Mortality and Morbidity After Cardiac Valve Interventions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(4):1490–1495. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.12.082.
    1. McGonigle NC, Jones JM, Sidhu P, MacGowan SW. Concomitant mitral valve surgery with aortic valve replacement: a 21-year experience with a single mechanical prosthesis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;2(1):24. doi: 10.1186/1749-8090-2-24.
    1. Coutinho GF, Correia PM, Antunes MJ. Concomitant aortic and mitral surgery: To replace or repair the mitral valve? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(4):1386–1392.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.008.
    1. Coutinho GF, Martínez Cereijo JM, Correia PM, Lopes CS, López LR, Muñoz DD, et al. Long-term results after concomitant mitral and aortic valve surgery: repair or replacement?†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy205/5004408.
    1. Kilic A, Grimm JC, Magruder JT, Sciortino CM, Whitman GJR, Baumgartner WA, et al. Trends, clinical outcomes, and cost implications of mitral valve repair versus replacement, concomitant with aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(6):1614–1619. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.02.044.
    1. Jamieson WRE, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark RE, Grover FL. Risk stratification for cardiac valve replacement. National Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(4):943–951. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00175-7.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe