Michele Di Mauro

and 4 more

Choosing to perform mitral valve (MV) repair or replacement remains a hot and highly debated topic. The current guidelines seem to be conflicting in this specific field and the evidences at our disposal are scarce, only one small randomized trial and few larger retrospective studies. The meta-analysis by Gamal and coworkers tries to summarize the current evidences, concluding that MV replacement for the treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation is at least as safe as repair and certainly offers a more stable result over time than the latter. Obviously, the implantation of a prosthesis, especially a mechanical one, brings with it a series of problems, such as anticoagulation and, above all, a possible lack of ventricular remodeling, especially if a chordal sparing replacement is not performed. It must be said, on the other hand, that isolated annuloplasty cannot act as a counterpart to replacement, because ischemic MR cannot be considered only an annular disease. Therefore, wanting to mimic the nature that, after an infarction, enacts a series of changes involving also the mitral leaflets and chordae, the surgeons are called to act also on these two entities and not only to downsize the annulus. In a nutshell, a procedure should not be opposed in a fundamentalist way to another one, but we must accept the concept of armamentarium where both procedures are present and tail on the single patient, and also on the surgeon’s expertise, the technique guaranteeing the best possible result.

Antonio Calafiore

and 6 more

Michele Di Mauro

and 3 more

The meta-analysis by He and collaborators [has the worth to cover, as much as possible, a gap of scientific evidence where conducting a randomized trial appears very complex for ethical and logistical reasons. The authors concluded that mitral valve repair (MVP) provide better pooled results, both early and late, with respect to mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the superiority of MVP is driven by some single large cohort-studies where surgeons had wide experience in the field of MVP for IE. This finding is also confirmed by other studies. But if mitral repair produces such a better short- and long-term survival than replacement, why are there no clear indications from consensus and guidelines pushing surgeons toward the pursuit of a reconstructive procedure at almost any cost? We wonder but to repair or not to repair, is that really the question? The AATS consensus suggests to repair “whenever possible” but without providing more specific indications. If the two primary goals of surgery are total removal of infected tissues and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve(s), probably MVP as to perform in case of less extensive tissue detriment by the infection. In more wide valve involvement, MVP may be the choice but only in very expert hands and in Centers with very large volume of valve repairing. This decision cannot therefore be the result of the choice of an individual but must derive from a careful multidisciplinary discussion to be held in an EndoTeam.

Michele Di Mauro

and 8 more

OBJECTIVE. For many years, functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) was considered negligible after treatment of left-sided heart valve surgery. The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to summarize the results of four approaches in order to establish the possible gold standard. METHODS A systematic search was performed to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of four approach for FTR, not tricuspid annuloplasty (no TA), suture annuloplasty (SA), flexible (FRA), rigid rings (RRA). All studies reporting at least one the four endpoints (early and late mortality, early and late moderate or more TFR) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS There were 31 included studies with 9,663 patients. Aggregate early mortality was 5.3% no TA, 7.2% SA, 6.6% FRA and 6.4% RRA; Early TR moderate-or-more was 9.6%, 4.8%, 4.6% and 3.8%; Late mortality was 22.5%, 18.2%, 11.9% and 11.9%; Late TR moderate-or-more was 27.9%, 18.3%, 14.3% and 6.4%. Rigid or semirigid ring annuloplasty was the most effective approach for decreasing the risk of late moderate or more FTR (–85% vs. no TA; –64% vs. SA; –32% vs. FRA). Concerning late mortality, no significant differences were found among different surgical approaches, however, flexible or rigid rings reduced significantly the risk of late mortality (78% and 47%, respectively) compared with not performing TA mortality. No differences were found for early outcomes. CONCLUSIONS. Ring annuloplasty seems to offer better late outcomes compare to either suture annuloplasty or not performing TA. In particular rigid or semirigid rings provides more stable FTR across time.