BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the late results of combined mitral valve repair and aortic valve replacement with double valve replacement for patients with rheumatic heart disease.

METHODS

From 1981 to 2003, 128 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with either mitral valve repair (n = 47) or mitral valve replacement (n = 81) for rheumatic disease. Mean follow-up was 9.1 +/- 4.5 years.

RESULTS

Rates of actuarial freedom from cardiac-related death (81.4% versus 75.9% at 12 years; p = 0.60), thromboembolism (79.8% versus 85.1% at 12 years; p = 0.78), and bleeding (97.3% versus 95.7% at 12 years; p = 0.77) were similar in both combined mitral valve repair and aortic valve replacement and double valve replacement. However, freedom from mitral valve reoperation was significantly lower in combined mitral valve repair and aortic valve replacement compared with double valve replacement (52.6% versus 76.8% at 12 years; p = 0.002). Mitral valve repair (p = 0.002) and mitral bioprosthesis (p = 0.0001) were independent risk factors for mitral valve reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential advantages of preserving, rather than replacing, the native mitral valve, such as better cardiac survival or fewer thromboembolic complications, were not identified in combined mitral valve repair and aortic valve replacement compared with double valve replacement for patients with rheumatic disease. Indeed, combined mitral valve repair and aortic valve replacement was associated with a significantly higher incidence of mitral valve reoperation. Therefore, in double valve surgery for rheumatic disease, mitral valve repair should be limited to the correction of mitral valve lesions only when excellent durability can be expected.