Mitral valve (MV) repair offers potential advantages over replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD). We present the first long-term study that compares MV repair with replacement in children with RHD.
Methods and Results:
Single institute retrospective review of patients with RHD under 20 years of age, who underwent their first isolated MV surgery between 1990 and 2006. Of the 81 patients, 98% were Māori or Pacific Islander. The median age was 12.7 (3-19) years. The MV was repaired in 59%, a mechanical valve replacement (MVR) took place in 35% and bioprosthetic valve replacement in 6% of the patients. Follow-up data were available for 91.4% of the patients with mean follow-up of 7.6 years (range 0-19.4 years), a total of 620 patient years. Actuarial survival at 10 and 14 years for patients with MVR was 79% and 44%, compared to 90% and 90% for patients who underwent repair (P = .06). Actuarial freedom from late reoperation at 10 and 14 years for patients with MVR was 88% and 73%, compared to 76% and 76% for patients with repair (P = .52). Actuarial freedom from thrombotic, embolic, and hemorrhagic events at 10 and 14 years for patients with MVR was 63% and 45%, compared to 100% and 100% for patients with repair P < .01).
Conclusion:
This study shows that MV repair is superior to replacement for RHD in the young with follow-up to 19 years. Repair offers a survival advantage, greater freedom from valve-related morbidity, and long-term durability that equals that of MVR.
WebbRWilsonNLennonD.Population-based echocardiographic screening for rheumatic heart disease in high-risk New Zealand children. World Congress Paediatr Cardiol Card Surg. Cairns; 2009.
5.
ShuhaiberJAndersonRJ.Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(2):267–275.
6.
AntunesMJMagalhaesMPColsenPRKinsleyRH.Valvuloplasty for rheumatic mitral valve disease. A surgical challenge. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;94(1):44–56.
DelocheAJebaraVARellandJY. Valve repair with carpentier techniques. The second decade. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99(6):990–1001.
9.
DiBardinoDJElBardissiAWMcClureRSRazo-VasquezOAKellyNECohnLH.Four decades of experience with mitral valve repair: analysis of differential indications, technical evolution, and long-term outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(1):76–83.
10.
AkinsCWMillerDCTurinaMI. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135(4):732–738.
11.
GentlesTLColanSDWilsonNJBiosaRNeutzeJM.Left ventricular mechanics during and after acute rheumatic fever: contractile dysfunction is closely related to valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):201–207.
12.
JaffeWMBarratt-BoyesBGSadriAGavinJBCoverdaleHANeutzeJM.Early follow-up of patients with the Medtronic Intact porcine valve. A new cardiac bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989;98(2):181–192.
FradetGBleeseNBusseE. The mosaic valve clinical performance at seven years: results from a multicenter prospective clinical trial. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13(2):239–246.
15.
SoperJChanGTSkinnerJRSpinettoHDGentlesTL.Management of oral anticoagulation in a population of children with cardiac disease using a computerised system to support decision-making. Cardiol Young. 2006;16(3):256–260.
16.
GometzaBal-HaleesZShahidMHatleLKDuranCM.Surgery for rheumatic mitral regurgitation in patients below twenty years of age. An analysis of failures. J Heart Valve Dis. 1996;5(3):294–301.
17.
KalangosAChristensonJTBeghettiMCikirikciogluMKamentsidisDAggounY.Mitral valve repair for rheumatic valve disease in children: midterm results and impact of the use of a biodegradable mitral ring. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(1):161–168.
18.
TalwarSRajeshMRSubramanianA. Mitral valve repair in children with rheumatic heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(4):875–879.
19.
National Heart Foundation of New Zealand. New Zealand guideline for prevention of infective endocarditis associated with dental and other medical interventions. 2008. http://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145881467. Accessed 19 December, 2010.
20.
RicheyRWrayDStokesT.Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2008;336(7647):770.
21.
WilsonWTaubertKAGewitzM. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American heart association rheumatic fever, endocarditis, and kawasaki disease committee, council on cardiovascular disease in the young, and the council on clinical cardiology, council on cardiovascular surgery and anesthesia, and the quality of care and outcomes research interdisciplinary working group. Circulation. 2007;116(15):1736.
22.
GouldFKElliottTSJFowerakerJ. Guidelines for the prevention of endocarditis: report of the working party of the British society for antimicrobial chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;57(6):1035.
23.
WisenbaughTSkudickyDSareliP.Prediction of outcome after valve replacement for rheumatic mitral regurgitation in the era of chordal preservation. Circulation. 1994;89(1):191–197.
24.
BonowROCarabelloBAChatterjeeK. 2008Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2008;118(15):e523–e661.
25.
AntunesMJ.Mitral valvuloplasty, a better alternative. Comparative study between valve reconstruction and replacement for rheumatic mitral valve disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1990;4(5):257–262.
26.
ChauvaudSFuzellierJFBerrebiADelocheAFabianiJNCarpentierA.Long-term (29 years) results of reconstructive surgery in rheumatic mitral valve insufficiency. Circulation. 2001;104(12 suppl 1): I12–I15.
27.
JohnSRavikumarEJairajPSChowdhuryUKrishnaswamiS.Valve replacement in the young patient with rheumatic heart disease. Review of a twenty-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99(4):631–638.
28.
AntunesMJVanderdonckKMSussmanMJ. Mechanical valve replacement in children and teenagers. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 1989;3(3):222–228.
29.
AntunesMJColsenPRKinsleyRH.Mitral valvuloplasty: a learning curve. Circulation. 1983;68(3 pt 2):II70–I75.
30.
AlsoufiBManlhiotCMcCrindleBW. Aortic and mitral valve replacement in children: is there any role for biologic and bioprosthetic substitutes?Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2009;36(1):84–90.
31.
TravancasPRDorigoAHSimoesLCFonsecaSCBlochKVHerdyGV.Comparison of mechanical and biological prostheses when used to replace heart valves in children and adolescents with rheumatic fever. Cardiol Young. 2009;19(2):192–197.
32.
SadlerLMcCowanLWhiteHStewartABrackenMNorthR. Pregnancy outcomes and cardiac complications in women with mechanical, bioprosthetic and homograft valves. BJOG. 2000;107(2):245–253.
33.
WalshWBrownACarapetisJ.The diagnosis and management of chronic rheumatic heart disease -an Australian guideline. Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17(4):271–289.
34.
NorthRASadlerLStewartAWMcCowanLMKerrARWhiteHD.Long-term survival and valve-related complications in young women with cardiac valve replacements. Circulation. 1999;99(20):2669–2676.
