Mitral valve repair for posterior leaflet prolapse: Long-term comparison of loop implantation vs resection

Background Resection (triangular or quadrangular) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of posterior leaflet prolapse and loop implantation a more recent alternative. We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of triangular or quadrangular resection vs loop implantation. Methods Single-centre, retrospective analysis of mitral valve (MV) surgeries conducted from January 2005 to December 2015. Propensity score matching was based on seven key baseline variables. Results Data from 721 patients were analyzed; 358 patients received loop implantation and 363 patients underwent resection. Patients had a mean age of 62 years, 33.0% were female and 50.6% had hypertension. Propensity score matching resulted in a matched group of 263 patients who received loop implantation or underwent resection, respectively. Postoperatively, the patients' mitral insufficiency was reduced from grade III/IV to either zero or trace (45.8%) or I (49.8%) and New York Heart Association class reduced from 66.9% in class III/IV preoperatively to 8.3% with no significant differences between groups. Fewer patients receiving loops had procedure-related complications. Fewer patients in the loop implantation group required permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days (8.4% vs 2.3%; P = .002). The 10-year survival for patients in the resection (88.0%) and loop implantation (89.3%) groups had a hazard ratio of 1.224 (95% confidence interval, 0.633-2.367). Conclusion Our study showed that both loop implantation and resection were associated with comparable long-term survival in patients with posterior leaflet prolapse. Loop implantation is associated with a significantly higher rate of a successful repair, a significantly lower rate of MV replacement after repair failure, fewer procedure-related complications and better 30-day at comparable long-term outcomes.