Mitral valve repair in a regional quality collaborative: Respect or resect?

Abstract

ObjectiveMitral valve repair is the gold standard for treatment of mitral regurgitation, but the optimal technique remains debated. By using a regional collaborative, we sought to determine the change in repair technique over time. MethodsWe identified all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve repair from 2012 to 2022 for degenerative mitral disease. Those with endocarditis, transcatheter repair, or tricuspid intervention were excluded. Continuous variables were analyzed via Wilcoxon rank sum, and categorical variables were analyzed via chi-square testing. ResultsWe identified 1653 patients who underwent mitral valve repair, with 875 (59.2%) undergoing a no resection repair. Over the last decade, there was no significant trend in the proportion of repair techniques across the region (P = .96). Those undergoing no resection repairs were more likely to have undergone prior cardiac surgery (5.0% vs 2.2%, P = .002) or minimally invasive approaches (61.4% vs 24.7%, P < .001) with similar predicted risk of mortality (median 0.6% vs 0.6%, P = .75). Intraoperatively, no resection repairs were associated with longer bypass times (140 [117-167] minutes vs 122 [91-159] minutes, P < .001). Operative mortality was similar between both groups (1.1% vs 1.0%, P = .82), as were other postoperative outcomes. Anterior leaflet prolapse (odds ratio, 11.16 [6.34-19.65], P < .001) and minimally invasive approach (odds ratio, 6.40 [5.06-8.10], P < .001) were most predictive of no resection repair. ConclusionsDespite minor differences in operative times, statewide over the past decade there remains a diverse mix of both classic “resect” and newer “respect” strategies with comparable short-term outcomes and no major timewise trends. These data may suggest that both approaches are equivocal.