Mitral Valve Surgery: Lessons from New York State

Transcription

1 Mitral Valve Surgery: Lessons from New York State Joanna Chikwe, MD Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Chairman & Program Director Department of Cardiovascular Surgery Mount Sinai St Luke s

2 2

3 Disclosures Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai receives royalties from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for Dr. David Adams involvement in developing two mitral valve repair rings and one tricuspid valve repair ring. Dr. David Adams is the National Co-Principal Investigator of the CoreValve United States Pivotal Trial, which is supported by Medtronic. None of the sponsoring organizations had any role in the design and conduct of the study. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.. 3

4 Background In non-elderly patients undergoing mitral valve replacement, the optimal prosthesis type is controversial. 1,2 Current guidelines recommend either mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in patients under 70 years of age, 3,4 and state that the balance of risks favors mechanical valves in patients <60 years. 3 1 Kaneko, Cohn & Aranki, Circulation Suri & Schaff, Circulation Nishimura, Otto, & Bonow et al, JACC Vahanian, Alfieri, & Andreotti et al, Eur Heart J

5 Current evidence base Study Setting Age range Patients Survival Oxenham et al Heart, 2003 Randomized AVR: 211 MVR: 261 Both: 61 Mech (overall): 25.0% Bio (overall): 22.6% (p=0.39) at 20 years Hammermeister et al JACC, 2000 Randomized AVR: 394 MVR: 181 Mech (MVR): 19% Bio (MVR): 21% (p=0.30) at 15 years Kaneko et al JTCVS, 2014 Cohort <65 MVR: 250 Mech: 62.6% Bio: 40.4% (p<0.004) 5

6 Research question In non-elderly patients undergoing mitral valve replacement: Is there a survival difference between prosthesis types? If not, does the balance of complications such as stroke, reoperation, or major bleeding favor one prosthesis type over the other? Statewide planning and research cooperative Syststem(SPARCS) Mandatory All admissions, all visits to the emergency room, all ambulatory visits Administrative 6

7 Methodology Inclusion criteria Primary mitral valve replacement (n=5340) Age Exclusion criteria Out-of-state residents (7.0%, n=) Prior replacement of any valve (7.8%) Concomitant valve replacement (21.9%) Concomitant aortic/pulmonary valve repair (1.1%) Concomitant CABG (33.4%) Concomitant thoracic aortic surgery (1.2%) 7

8 Trend in mitral prosthesis choice Bioprosthetic Mechanical prosthetic Year 8

9 Patient characteristics Co-morbidity Bioprosthetic (n=664) Mechanical (n=664) Male 42% 42% 0.7 Age Endocarditis 3% 4% 0.46 Bleeding disorder 7% 8% 0.52 Hypertension 56% 58% 0.28 Diabetes 21% 24% 0.68 Coronary artery disease 39% 39% 0.11 Peripheral vascular disease 3% 5% 0.43 Cerebrovascular disease 8% 9% 0.63 Congestive heart failure 57% 60% 0.28 Atrial fibrillation 46% 44% 0.35 COPD 21% 23% 0.47 Chronic kidney disease 9% 10% 0.43 Liver disease 7% 9% 0.18 Cancer 4% 4% 0.89 P value 9

10 30-day outcomes Complication Bioprosthetic (n=664) Mechanical (n=664) P value Mortality 5% 4% 0.12 Stroke 2% 2% 0.85 Atrial fibrillation 13% 10% 0.13 Acute kidney injury 4% 4% 0.67 Respiratory failure 21% 16% Readmission 22% 20%

11 Results: survival 59.9% 57.5% 11

12 Results: reoperation 11.1% 5.0% 12

13 Results: major bleeding 14.9% 9.0% 13

14 Results: stroke 14.0% 6.8% 14

15 Summary of findings We did not observe a survival difference between mechanical and bioprosthetic mitral valves in propensity matched patients aged 50 to 69 years. The 15-year cumulative incidence of stroke and major bleeding were both significantly higher in the mechanical group The 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was lower in the mechanical prosthesis group 15

16 Conclusions The main trade-off is between reoperation and stroke: patients with mechanical valves had a lower risk of reoperation but a greater risk of stroke. These findings support the expanded use of bioprosthetic valves in younger patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. 16

17 Strengths & limitations Large sample size All levels of care represented from tertiary referral centers to community hospitals Important clinical endpoints Accuracy of coding Unable to determine when patients were hospitalized outside of New York State Absence of potential confounding variables e.g. etiology of valve disease, extent of coronary artery disease, and ventricular dysfunction Lack of operative detail 17

18 NYS work in progress Validating method of reliably identifying degenerative and ischemic patients Combining SPARCS data with clinical datasets such as New York State report cards: Additional validation of dataset Better information on LV function, valve dysfunction and precise distribution of coronary artery disease More detailed operative Long-term outcomes of repair versus replacement in ischemic mitral valve disease Long-term outcomes of isolated CABG versus concomitant mitral surgery in patients with ischemic MR undergoing CABG Impact of surgeon experience on degenerative mitral valve repair rates and durability Impact of atrial fibrillation on long-term outcomes after mitral valve surgery 18

19 Thank you David H. Adams MD Yuting Chiang MSc, MD Natalia Egorova PhD Annetine Gellijns MD Shinobu Itagaki MD Alan Moskowitz MD Nana Toyoda MD 19