Long-Term Survival Advantage of Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement Over Transcatheter Mitral Valve-in-Valve: A Multicenter Cohort.
Study design
Detecting…
BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement (mViV) is safe, long-term outcomes compared with reoperative surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR) remains unknown. This study compared long-term outcomes between mViV and rSMVR in patients with failing mitral bioprostheses.
METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study analyzed patients undergoing mViV or rSMVR for failing bioprosthetic mitral valves without active endocarditis at 2 quaternary care centers from 2004 to 2023. Primary end points included 30-day Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) procedural success, 5-year cumulative incidence of death, freedom from reintervention, and cumulative incidence of heart failure. Echocardiographic evaluation of mean mitral valve gradients was assessed at baseline and 5-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Of 229 patients (90 rSMVR, 139 mViV; mean age, 66.0 vs 68.7 years), MVARC 30-day outcomes were similar except for higher prolonged ventilation with rSMVR. At 5 years, rSMVR had significantly lower mortality (20.3% vs 40.9%; P = .01) and lower mean (standard deviation) mitral gradients (immediate postprocedure: 5.1 [2.3] mm Hg vs 7.8 [3.0] mm Hg; 5-year: 5.3 [2.0] mm Hg vs 9.8 [5.3] mm Hg; P < .001). Freedom from mitral valve reintervention (5.8% vs 6.1%; P = .97) and cumulative heart failure incidence (14.3% vs 22.9%; P = .17) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Although mViV demonstrated comparable 30-day MVARC outcomes, rSMVR was associated with superior long-term survival and hemodynamic durability among patients deemed appropriate surgical candidates by a multidisciplinary heart team. Treatment decisions should balance short-term risk with long-term outcomes.
Guided critical appraisal
Work through each domain from the paper itself. Stuck? Tap 💡 Coach me — it asks guiding questions, it won't hand you the answer.
Loading the checklist…
Clinical question & bottom line
When does PICO fit? PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) suits some designs better than
others — adapt it loosely, and leave fields blank when they don't apply. Fits cleanly: RCTs, cohort
(frame the exposure as the intervention), case-control (backward: outcome → exposure), systematic reviews,
diagnostic accuracy (PIRD: Population, Index test, Reference standard, Diagnosis). Looser fit:
cross-sectional (often no comparator), qualitative (SPIDER/PICo suit better), case reports (appraise design,
bias, and applicability instead).
Work the appraisal here. Your design call, checklist, and coaching are yours and stay private to this demo session. Sharing with a club, faculty sign-off, and export need your own club.