Mitral valve replacement for mitral stenosis: A 15-year single center experience

• Main Authors: Alqasem F. Al Mosa, Aamir Omair, Ahmed A. Arifi, Hani K. Najm
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Saudi Heart Association 2016-10-01
• Series: Journal of the Saudi Heart Association
• Subjects: Bioprosthetic valves; Mechanical valves; Mitral stenosis; Outcome; Valve replacement
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1016731516000099

Objectives: Mitral valve replacement with either a bioprosthetic or a mechanical valve is the treatment of choice for severe mitral stenosis. However, choosing a valve implant type is still a subject of debate. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the early and late outcomes of mitral valve replacement [mechanical (MMV) vs. bioprosthetic (BMV)] for severe mitral stenosis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed on data involving mitral stenosis patients who have undergone mitral valve replacement with either BMV (n = 50) or MMV (n = 145) valves from 1999 to 2012. Data were collected from the patients’ records and follow-up through telephone calls. Data were analyzed for early and late mortality, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes, stroke, pre- and postoperative echocardiographic findings, early and late valve-related complications, and survival. Chi-square test, logistic regression, Kaplan–Meier curve, and dependent proportions tests were some of the tests employed in the analysis. Results: A total of 195 patients were included in the study with a 30-day follow-up echocardiogram available for 190 patients (97.5%), while 103 (53%) were available for follow-up over the telephone. One patient died early postoperatively; twelve patients died late in the postoperative period, six in the bioprosthesis group and six in the mechanical group. The late mortality had a significant association with postoperative stroke (p < 0.001) and postoperative NYHA Classes III and IV (p = 0.002). Postoperative NYHA class was significantly associated with age (p = 0.003), pulmonary disease (p = 0.02), mitral valve implant type (p = 0.01), and postoperative stroke (p = 0.02); 14 patients had strokes in the mechanical (9) and in the bioprosthetic (5) groups. NYHA classes were significantly better after the replacement surgeries (p < 0.001). BMV were significantly associated with worse survival (p = 0.03), worse NYHA postoperatively (p = 0.01), and more reoperations (p = 0.006). Survival was significantly better with MMV (p = 0.03). When the two groups were matched for age and mitral regurgitation, the analysis revealed that BMV were significantly associated with reoperations (p = 0.02) but not significantly associated with worse survival (p = 0.4) or worse NYHA (p = 0.4). Conclusion: MMV replacement in mitral stenosis patients is associated with a lower reoperation rate, but there was no difference in survival compared with BMV replacement.