A Nationwide Study on Mitral Valve Repair vs Replacement for Active Endocarditis

Abstract

BackgroundReal-world evidence supporting the reproducibility and superiority of valve repair over replacement in active mitral valve infective endocarditis is lacking. MethodsData from a prospective nationwide database, including all cardiac surgical procedures in The Netherlands, were used. Adult patients undergoing primary mitral valve intervention who had a diagnosis of active infective endocarditis and who underwent surgery between 2013 and 2020 were included. Survival analysis was performed for the whole follow-up period as well as after applying the landmark of 90 days. ResultsOf 715 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 294 (41.1%) underwent valve repair. Mitral valve repair rates decreased slightly over the course of the study. The early mortality rate was 13.0%, and a trend of steadily declining early mortality rates over the course of the study, despite a steady increase in patient complexity, was observed. On risk-adjusted analysis, mitral valve replacement demonstrated inferior results when compared with valve repair (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.216; 95% CI, 1.425-3.448; P < .001), even after a landmark analysis was performed (adjusted hazard ratio 2.489; 95% CI, 1.124-5.516; P = .025). These results were confirmed by a propensity score–adjusted analysis (adjusted hazard ratio 2.251; 95% CI, 1.029-4.21; P = .042). ConclusionsContemporary trends in mitral valve surgery for active infective endocarditis suggest growing patient complexity but slightly declining early mortality rates. A trend of decreasing mitral valve repair rates was seen. The results of this study suggest improved late outcomes of valve repair compared with valve replacement.