Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Repeat Mitral Valve Replacement

ABSTRACT Introduction: Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement (rTMVR) has emerged as a new option for the management of high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR). The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations after rTMVR versus surgical mitral valve replacement. Methods: We compared patients who underwent rTMVR (n=22) from 2017 to 2019 (Group 1) to patients who underwent rSMVR (n=98) with or without tricuspid valve surgery from 2009 to 2019 (Group 2). We excluded patients who underwent a concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement or other concomitant surgery. Results: Patients in Group 1 were significantly older (72.5 [67-78] vs. 57 [52-64] years, P<0.001). There was no diference in EuroSCORE II between groups (6.56 [5.47-8.04] vs. 6.74 [4.28-11.84], P=0.86). Implanted valve size was 26 (26-29) mm in Group 1 and 25 (25-27) mm in Group 2 (P=0.106). There was no diference in operative mortality between groups (P=0.46). However, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were shorter in Group 1 (P=0.03 and <0.001, respectively). NYHA class improved significantly in both groups at one year (P<0.001 for both groups). There was no group effect on survival (P=0.84) or cardiac readmission (P=0.26). However, reoperations were more frequent in Group 1 (P=0.01). Conclusion: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve could shorten ICU and hospital stay compared to rSMVR with a comparable mortality rate. rTMVR is a safe procedure; however, it has a higher risk of reoperation. rTMVR can be an option in selected high-risk patients.

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Repeat Mitral Valve Replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement (rTMVR) has emerged as a new option for the management of high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR). The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations after rTMVR versus surgical mitral valve replacement. METHODS: We compared patients who underwent rTMVR (n=22) from 2017 to 2019 (Group 1) to patients who underwent rSMVR (n=98) with or without tricuspid valve surgery from 2009 to 2019 (Group 2). We excluded patients who underwent a concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement or other concomitant surgery. RESULTS: Patients in Group 1 were significantly older (72.5 [67-78] vs. 57 [52-64] years, P<0.001). There was no diference in EuroSCORE II between groups (6.56 [5.47-8.04] vs. 6.74 [4.28-11.84], P=0.86). Implanted valve size was 26 (26-29) mm in Group 1 and 25 (25-27) mm in Group 2 (P=0.106). There was no diference in operative mortality between groups (P=0.46). However, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were shorter in Group 1 (P=0.03 and <0.001, respectively). NYHA class improved significantly in both groups at one year (P<0.001 for both groups). There was no group effect on survival (P=0.84) or cardiac readmission (P=0.26). However, reoperations were more frequent in Group 1 (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve could shorten ICU and hospital stay compared to rSMVR with a comparable mortality rate. rTMVR is a safe procedure; however, it has a higher risk of reoperation. rTMVR can be an option in selected high-risk patients.

Using tissue mitral valves in younger patients: A word of caution.

BACKGROUND: The debate about the optimal mitral valve prosthesis continues. We aimed to compare the early and late outcomes, including stroke, bleeding, survival, and reoperation after isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR) using tissue versus mechanical valves. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 291 patients who had isolated MVR from 2005 to 2015. Patients were grouped into the tissue valve group (n = 140) and the mechanical valve group (n = 151). RESULTS: There were no differences in duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay, and hospital mortality between groups. Fifteen patients required cardiac rehospitalization, nine in the tissue valve group, and six in the mechanical valve group (p = .44). Stroke occurred in nine patients, five with tissue valves, and four with mechanical valves (p = .66). Bleeding occurred in 22 patients, seven patients with tissue valves, and 15 patients with mechanical valves (p = .09). Freedom from reoperation was 95%, 93%, 84%, 67% at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years for tissue valve and 97%, 96%, 96%, and 93% for mechanical valves, respectively (p˂ .001). The median follow-up was 84 months (Q1: Q3: 38-139). Survival at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years was 94%, 91%, 89%, 86% in tissue valves and 96%, 93%, 91%, 91% in mechanical valves, respectively (p = .49). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue valve degeneration is still an issue even in the new generations of mitral tissue valves. The significant risk of reoperation in patients with mitral tissue valves should be considered when using those valves in younger patients. Mechanical valves remain a valid option for all age groups.

Giant Cervical Goiter With Posterior Mediastinal Extension.

Most cervico-mediastinal goiters are situated in the anterior mediastinal compartment, but according to the literature, 10-15 percent of them are located in the posterior mediastinum. Although most anterior mediastinal goiters can be removed by using the transcervical approach, cervico-mediastinal goiters in the posterior mediastinal may require additional extracervical incisions. We report the case of a huge cervico-mediastinal goiter extending from the neck retrotracheally to the posterior mediastinum. Surgical removal is the treatment of choice in such cases. We performed an operation using a transcervical and right posterolateral thoracotomy approach. Histopathological examination confirmed the diagnosis of a large toxic goiter. The patient recovered well and was discharged in one week. While most retrosternal goiters can be resected through a transcervical approach, those extending beyond the aortic arch are better dealt with by either sternotomy or thoracotomy. This report describes the use of transcervical and posterolateral thoracotomy with an excellent postoperative result.