Mitral valve repair versus replacement in severe ischemic mitral regurgitation systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a serious consequence of coronary artery disease. The choice of the optimal surgical strategy remains debatable. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of mitral valve repair (RPR) versus replacement (RPL) regarding perioperative mortality, overall mortality, reoperation, recurrence of MR, and reverse remodeling after surgery. Methods Electronic searches were performed using the searchable databases of Google Scholar, Pubmed, and Embase, and the search terms mitral valve, IMR, RPR, RPL, and coronary artery bypass grafting. The main outcomes of interest are perioperative mortality, overall mortality, reoperation, recurrence of MR, and reverse remodeling after surgery. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during the surgery or within 30 days after the operation. Results There was a trend towards better perioperative survival in the RPR arm. However, the difference fell short of statistical significance [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): 0.66 (0.41-1.07), p = 0.09]. Patients submitted to RPR experienced a significantly higher MR recurrence rate when compared with their counterparts submitted to RPL [OR (95% CI): 16.8 (5.07-55.7, p = 0.00001)]. Conclusion There is a trend towards lower perioperative mortality in RPR in comparison to RPL. On the other hand, RPL was associated with significantly lower recurrence rates.