Meta-Analysis Comparing Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation Across All Ages

Abstract

Although current guidelines recommend mitral valve repair (MVr) over mitral valve replacement (MVR) for patients with mitral regurgitation (MR), it is unclear if it should be also recommended in elderly patients with limited life expectancy. This study was conducted to compare the results of MVr with those of MVR to determine the optimal treatment option for patients with degenerative MR, particularly according to the patient's age. A literature search of 5 electronic databases was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes included early mortality and freedom from reoperation. A metaregression analysis and subgroup analysis were performed according to the mean age of the study population. Twelve retrospective studies (2,950 and 1,252 patients in the MVr and MVR groups, respectively) were selected. Pooled analyses demonstrated that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the MVR group than in the MVr group both in all studies and in studies presenting adjusted results (hazard ratio[95% confidence interval] = 1.57[1.39 to 1.77] and 1.53[1.34 to 1.74], respectively). This benefit was similar across all ages when the metaregression analysis and the subgroup analysis were performed (p = 0.879 and 0.123, respectively). Early mortality and risk of reoperation were also higher in the MVR group than in the MVr group (risk ratio[95% confidence interval] = 4.51[3.12 to 6.51] and hazard ratio[95% confidence interval] = 1.47[1.09 to 1.98], respectively). In conclusion, this study indicates that MVr is beneficial compared with MVR in patients with degenerative MR regardless of patients' age in terms of all-cause mortality.