Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome

Abstract

Background Infective endocarditis (IE) poses significant clinical challenges, often necessitating surgical intervention for improved patient outcomes. The choice between mitral valve repair (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) is crucial in managing IE. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of MVP and MVR in treating IE, focusing on outcomes such as postoperative bleeding, mortality, recurrent endocarditis, and stroke. Main text A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing MVP and MVR in IE patients were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Thirty-two studies involving 82,123 patients were included. MVP was associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40–0.84) and reduced long-term mortality (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32–0.51) compared to MVR. However, MVR showed lower rates of recurrent endocarditis. MVP was also associated with a decreased likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40–0.68).2, 4 Conclusions MVP demonstrates advantages over MVR in reducing postoperative bleeding, long-term mortality, and stroke risk in IE patients. However, individual patient factors and surgical expertise must be considered in treatment decisions. Further research, including randomized controlled trials, is needed to validate these findings and refine treatment algorithms for IE management.