Repair versus replacement for active endocarditis of the mitral valve: 9 years of experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To determine the factors contributing to successful mitral valve repair (MVP) and to discuss the effect of complex techniques on the durability of MVP for active infective endocarditis (IE) affecting the mitral valve.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 39.6% underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 60.4% underwent MVP. We used logistic regression to identify influencing factors of the choice of surgical technique. The results were compared between groups and subgroups after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Risk factors for MVR included poor valve quality (odds ratio [OR] 23.3, p = .001), a large defect after debridement (OR 16.4, p < .001), and heavy valve infection (OR 3.7, p = .027). After PSM, we did not find a significant difference in the frequency of major postoperative complications or the in-hospital or postdischarge death rate. The reintervention rate for MVP was significantly higher than that for MVR (p = .047). Subgroup analysis found a significant relationship between the use of a complex repair technique and the need for reoperation (p = .020).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of valve repair or replacement for patients with active IE affecting the mitral valve was influenced by the intraoperative characteristics of the infected valve rather than the severity of systemic infection or overall health status. The choice of surgical treatment strategy had no effect on major postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, or medium-term survival. However, the medium-term durability of MVP was poorer than that of MVR. The use of the patch technique for free margins or extensive leaflet defects was associated with a need for reintervention.