Purpose of review The aim of the article is to discuss different therapeutic options for patients with severe mitral valve dysfunction because of mitral annular calcification (MAC), including mitral valve repair, conventional mitral valve replacement, percutaneous transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), and hybrid procedures. Recent findings Optimal management of severe mitral valve disease because of MAC remains challenging. Various ‘resect’ or ‘respect’ repair strategies have been standardized and are applicable in eligible patients. Mitral valve replacement with a standard surgical bioprosthesis is often possible in nonrepair candidates, especially with noncircumferential MAC. TMVR has evolved as a feasible option for anatomically and/or clinically prohibitive open-surgery cases, with the caveat of strict anatomic eligibility criteria. Hybrid TMVR provides the advantages of both open-surgery and TMVR and has emerged as a promising alternative in select patients. Summary Surgical management of MAC and severe mitral valve disease continues to evolve. The addition of transcatheter valve options may benefit many patients previously considered inoperable and are now candidates for intervention. This review will summarize state-of-the-art management options for patients with MAC.

Background Mitral valve repair has been proved to provide better outcomes when compared with replacement in degenerative disease. However, it is still unclear that benefits of repair still remain in active endocarditis. Patient clinical conditions and severity of tissue destruction might limit successful durable repair. Methods Of all 247 patients who received surgery during active phase of native left-sided endocarditis from Jan 2006 to Dec 2017, 114 had mitral valve procedures due to active infection of mitral valve apparatus (38 repair and 76 replacement). Perioperative data and mid-term outcomes were retrospectively compared. Results Mean age was 46.4 years old. Repair group had significantly less patients with NYHA class IV (18.4% vs 56.6%, p = 0.001). Both groups had preserved ejection fraction but accompanied by severe pulmonary hypertension. Major organism was streptococci (50%) and timing of surgery was 11 days after diagnosis. Bypass and cross-clamp time were similar but repair group had significantly less combined procedures. Bi-leaflet involvement was common (47.4% vs 57.6%) and valve lesions were comparable. There was 13.2% of postoperative moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in repair group without recurrent endocarditis. Repair group tended to have better 5-year survival estimates (91.6% vs 70.0%, p = 0.08) with comparable reoperation rate (7.9% vs 2.6%). By logistic regression analysis, mitral valve replacement was more likely to be performed in patients with decompensated heart failure and combined procedures. Conclusions Mitral valve repair during active endocarditis can be safely performed with good mid-term outcomes, especially in selected group of patients without extremely high surgical risk.

No abstract

No abstract

Delayed surgery is not associated with worse outcomes. Both early and delayed approaches are safe and provide acceptable results. Timing of surgery should be tailored to each patient's clinical status, not based on duration of endocarditis alone.