To repair or to replace in mitral valve infective endocarditis? an updated meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that affects patients’ livelihoods. Current surgical options in mitral valve IE include mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR). While each procedure boasts its merits, doubt remains as to which type of surgery is superior. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane literature databases for studies comparing MVR and MVr in mitral valve IE. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational studies that compare MVR vs. MVr in mitral valve IE were eligible. Our dichotomous outcomes were extracted in the form of event and total, and risk and hazard ratio (RR)(HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and were pooled and calculated using RevMan 5.0. Results Our study included 23 studies with a total population of 11,802 patients. Compared to MVR, MVr had statistically significant lower risks of both early mortality with RR [0.44; 95% CI, 0.38–0.51; p < 0.001] and long-term follow-up mortality with HR [0.70; 95% CI, 0.58–0.85; p = 0.0004]. Moreover, MVr was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of IE recurrence with RR [0.43; 95% CI, 0.32–0.58; p < 0.001]; however, no statistically significant differences between both groups in terms of re-operations with RR [0.83; 95% CI, 0.41–1.67; p = 0.60]. Conclusion Our results suggest that MVr was superior in terms of in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and risk of recurrence without significance in valve reoperation. Therefore, MVr is appropriate as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.