Respect Versus Resect Approaches for Mitral Valve Repair: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Abstract

Mitral valve repair (MVr) has been associated with superior long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications compared with mitral valve replacement for primary mitral regurgitation (MR). The 2 main approaches for MVr are chordal replacement ("respect approach") and leaflet resection ("resect approach"). We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis using 3 search databases to compare the long-term end points between both approaches. The primary end point was long-term survival. The secondary end points were long-term MR recurrence and reoperation. After reconstruction of time-to-event data for the individual survival analysis, pooled Kaplan-Meier curves for the end points were generated. A total of 14 studies (5,565 patients) were included in the analysis. The respect approach was associated with superior survival compared with the resect approach in the overall sample (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.96, p=0.024, n=3,901 patients) but not in the risk-adjusted sample (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82, p=0.991, n=620 patients). There was no difference between the approaches in the rate of MR recurrence in the overall sample (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.08, p=0.116, n=1,882 patients) or in the risk-adjusted sample (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.47, p=0.211, n=288 patients). The data for reoperation were only available in the overall sample and did not reveal a difference (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.35, p=0.663, n=3,505 patients). In conclusion, the current evidence suggests no difference in long-term mortality, MR recurrence, or reoperation between the resect and respect approaches for MVr after adjusting for patient risk factors. More long-term follow-up data are warranted.