Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease

A. Marc Gillinov, Eugene H. Blackstone, Edward R. Nowicki, Worawong Slisatkorn, Ghannam Al-Dossari, Douglas R. Johnston, Kristopher M. George, Penny L. Houghtaling, Brian Griffin, Joseph F. Sabik, Lars G. Svensson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

131 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The study objective was to identify characteristics differentiating patients undergoing valve replacement versus valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease and to use this information to compare survival and reoperation after each procedure. Methods: From 1985 to 2005, 3286 patients underwent isolated primary operation for degenerative mitral valve disease. Valve repair was performed in 3051 patients (93%), and valve replacement was performed in 235 patients (7.2%). A propensity model and score developed for fair comparison of outcomes yielded 195 matched pairs. Results: Patients undergoing replacement were older (70 ± 12 years vs 57 ± 13 years) and had more complex valvar pathology, symptoms, and left ventricular dysfunction. Thus, the characteristics of the propensity-matched patients undergoing repair more resembled those of the patients undergoing replacement (older, complex valvar pathology) than patients undergoing typical repair. Eight patients died in the hospital (0.26%) after repair and 5 patients (2.1%) died after replacement (P = .001). Unadjusted survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95%, 87%, and 68% after repair and 80%, 60%, and 44% after replacement, respectively (P <.0001); however, among propensity-matched patients, survival was similar (P = .8): 86% versus 83% at 5 years, 63% versus 62% at 10 years, and 43% versus 48% at 15 years. Freedom from reoperation among propensity-matched patients was 94% at 5 and 10 years after repair and 95% and 92% at 5 and 10 years after replacement, respectively (P = .6). Conclusion: It is reasonable to perform valve repair in elderly patients with complex degenerative mitral valve pathology because it can eliminate the need for anticoagulation and risk of prosthesis-related complications. However, when valve pathology is so complex that repair is infeasible, this study demonstrates that valve replacement does not diminish long-term outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume135
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mitral Valve
Pathology
Reoperation
Survival
Propensity Score
Left Ventricular Dysfunction
Prostheses and Implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Gillinov, A. M., Blackstone, E. H., Nowicki, E. R., Slisatkorn, W., Al-Dossari, G., Johnston, D. R., ... Svensson, L. G. (2008). Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 135(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.039

Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease. / Gillinov, A. Marc; Blackstone, Eugene H.; Nowicki, Edward R.; Slisatkorn, Worawong; Al-Dossari, Ghannam; Johnston, Douglas R.; George, Kristopher M.; Houghtaling, Penny L.; Griffin, Brian; Sabik, Joseph F.; Svensson, Lars G.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 135, No. 4, 04.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gillinov, AM, Blackstone, EH, Nowicki, ER, Slisatkorn, W, Al-Dossari, G, Johnston, DR, George, KM, Houghtaling, PL, Griffin, B, Sabik, JF & Svensson, LG 2008, 'Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease', Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 135, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.039
Gillinov, A. Marc ; Blackstone, Eugene H. ; Nowicki, Edward R. ; Slisatkorn, Worawong ; Al-Dossari, Ghannam ; Johnston, Douglas R. ; George, Kristopher M. ; Houghtaling, Penny L. ; Griffin, Brian ; Sabik, Joseph F. ; Svensson, Lars G. / Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2008 ; Vol. 135, No. 4.
@article{517766633f734ba0b37c187c3534ceb8,
title = "Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease",
abstract = "Objective: The study objective was to identify characteristics differentiating patients undergoing valve replacement versus valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease and to use this information to compare survival and reoperation after each procedure. Methods: From 1985 to 2005, 3286 patients underwent isolated primary operation for degenerative mitral valve disease. Valve repair was performed in 3051 patients (93{\%}), and valve replacement was performed in 235 patients (7.2{\%}). A propensity model and score developed for fair comparison of outcomes yielded 195 matched pairs. Results: Patients undergoing replacement were older (70 ± 12 years vs 57 ± 13 years) and had more complex valvar pathology, symptoms, and left ventricular dysfunction. Thus, the characteristics of the propensity-matched patients undergoing repair more resembled those of the patients undergoing replacement (older, complex valvar pathology) than patients undergoing typical repair. Eight patients died in the hospital (0.26{\%}) after repair and 5 patients (2.1{\%}) died after replacement (P = .001). Unadjusted survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95{\%}, 87{\%}, and 68{\%} after repair and 80{\%}, 60{\%}, and 44{\%} after replacement, respectively (P <.0001); however, among propensity-matched patients, survival was similar (P = .8): 86{\%} versus 83{\%} at 5 years, 63{\%} versus 62{\%} at 10 years, and 43{\%} versus 48{\%} at 15 years. Freedom from reoperation among propensity-matched patients was 94{\%} at 5 and 10 years after repair and 95{\%} and 92{\%} at 5 and 10 years after replacement, respectively (P = .6). Conclusion: It is reasonable to perform valve repair in elderly patients with complex degenerative mitral valve pathology because it can eliminate the need for anticoagulation and risk of prosthesis-related complications. However, when valve pathology is so complex that repair is infeasible, this study demonstrates that valve replacement does not diminish long-term outcomes.",
author = "Gillinov, {A. Marc} and Blackstone, {Eugene H.} and Nowicki, {Edward R.} and Worawong Slisatkorn and Ghannam Al-Dossari and Johnston, {Douglas R.} and George, {Kristopher M.} and Houghtaling, {Penny L.} and Brian Griffin and Sabik, {Joseph F.} and Svensson, {Lars G.}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.039",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "135",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Valve repair versus valve replacement for degenerative mitral valve disease

AU - Gillinov, A. Marc

AU - Blackstone, Eugene H.

AU - Nowicki, Edward R.

AU - Slisatkorn, Worawong

AU - Al-Dossari, Ghannam

AU - Johnston, Douglas R.

AU - George, Kristopher M.

AU - Houghtaling, Penny L.

AU - Griffin, Brian

AU - Sabik, Joseph F.

AU - Svensson, Lars G.

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Objective: The study objective was to identify characteristics differentiating patients undergoing valve replacement versus valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease and to use this information to compare survival and reoperation after each procedure. Methods: From 1985 to 2005, 3286 patients underwent isolated primary operation for degenerative mitral valve disease. Valve repair was performed in 3051 patients (93%), and valve replacement was performed in 235 patients (7.2%). A propensity model and score developed for fair comparison of outcomes yielded 195 matched pairs. Results: Patients undergoing replacement were older (70 ± 12 years vs 57 ± 13 years) and had more complex valvar pathology, symptoms, and left ventricular dysfunction. Thus, the characteristics of the propensity-matched patients undergoing repair more resembled those of the patients undergoing replacement (older, complex valvar pathology) than patients undergoing typical repair. Eight patients died in the hospital (0.26%) after repair and 5 patients (2.1%) died after replacement (P = .001). Unadjusted survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95%, 87%, and 68% after repair and 80%, 60%, and 44% after replacement, respectively (P <.0001); however, among propensity-matched patients, survival was similar (P = .8): 86% versus 83% at 5 years, 63% versus 62% at 10 years, and 43% versus 48% at 15 years. Freedom from reoperation among propensity-matched patients was 94% at 5 and 10 years after repair and 95% and 92% at 5 and 10 years after replacement, respectively (P = .6). Conclusion: It is reasonable to perform valve repair in elderly patients with complex degenerative mitral valve pathology because it can eliminate the need for anticoagulation and risk of prosthesis-related complications. However, when valve pathology is so complex that repair is infeasible, this study demonstrates that valve replacement does not diminish long-term outcomes.

AB - Objective: The study objective was to identify characteristics differentiating patients undergoing valve replacement versus valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease and to use this information to compare survival and reoperation after each procedure. Methods: From 1985 to 2005, 3286 patients underwent isolated primary operation for degenerative mitral valve disease. Valve repair was performed in 3051 patients (93%), and valve replacement was performed in 235 patients (7.2%). A propensity model and score developed for fair comparison of outcomes yielded 195 matched pairs. Results: Patients undergoing replacement were older (70 ± 12 years vs 57 ± 13 years) and had more complex valvar pathology, symptoms, and left ventricular dysfunction. Thus, the characteristics of the propensity-matched patients undergoing repair more resembled those of the patients undergoing replacement (older, complex valvar pathology) than patients undergoing typical repair. Eight patients died in the hospital (0.26%) after repair and 5 patients (2.1%) died after replacement (P = .001). Unadjusted survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 95%, 87%, and 68% after repair and 80%, 60%, and 44% after replacement, respectively (P <.0001); however, among propensity-matched patients, survival was similar (P = .8): 86% versus 83% at 5 years, 63% versus 62% at 10 years, and 43% versus 48% at 15 years. Freedom from reoperation among propensity-matched patients was 94% at 5 and 10 years after repair and 95% and 92% at 5 and 10 years after replacement, respectively (P = .6). Conclusion: It is reasonable to perform valve repair in elderly patients with complex degenerative mitral valve pathology because it can eliminate the need for anticoagulation and risk of prosthesis-related complications. However, when valve pathology is so complex that repair is infeasible, this study demonstrates that valve replacement does not diminish long-term outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41049101362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41049101362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.039

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.039

M3 - Article

VL - 135

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 4

ER -