Comparison of Mitral Valve Repair Versus Percutaneous Mitral Balloon Commissurotomy for Patients with Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Single-Centre Study

Xin Li,Yinfan Zhu,Jiajun Liang,Wenjian Jiang,Jie Han,Longfei Wang,Yuyong Liu,Hongjia Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2024.05.005
IF: 2.838
2024-01-01
Heart Lung and Circulation
Abstract:Background Percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy (PMBC) is the standard treatment option for patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS), according to current guidelines. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of rheumatic mitral valve repair (rMVR) and PMBC in this patient population. Methods Baseline, clinical, and follow-up data from 703 patients with rheumatic heart disease who underwent PMBC or rMVR at the current centre were collected and analysed. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching method was used to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The primary outcome was mitral valve reoperation, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results Propensity score matching generated 101 patient pairs for comparison. In the matched population, there were no significant fi cant differences in the early clinical outcomes between the groups. The median follow-up time was 40.9 months. Overall, patients in the rMVR group had a statistically significantly fi cantly lower risk of mitral valve reoperation than those in the PMBC group (HR 0.186; 95% CI 0.041-0.835; p=0.028). Regarding all-cause mortality, no statistically significant fi cant differences were observed between the rMVR and PMBC groups (HR 4.065; 95% CI 0.454-36.374; p=0.210). Conclusions Compared with PMBC, rMVR has more advantages for the correction of valve lesions; therefore, it may offer a better prognosis than PMBC in select patients with rheumatic MS. However, this fi nding needs to be verified fi ed in future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?