Comparative outcomes of totally endoscopic mitral valve repair in patients with barlow’s disease and isolated posterior mitral leaflet prolapse

X. Hua (Hamburg)1, J. Pausch (Hamburg)1, O. Bhadra (Hamburg)1, Y. Alassar (Hamburg)2, E. Girdauskas (Augsburg)3, L. Conradi (Köln)4, H. Reichenspurner (Hamburg)1, S. Pecha (Hamburg)5, A. Schäfer (Hamburg)1
1Universitäres Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Hamburg Klinik und Poliklinik für Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie Hamburg, Deutschland; 2Universitäres Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Hamburg Klinik für Kardiologie mit Schwerpunkt Elektrophysiologie Hamburg, Deutschland; 3Universitätsklinikum Augsburg Klinik für Anästhesiologie Augsburg, Deutschland; 4Universitätsklinikum Köln Klinik und Poliklinik für Herzchirurgie Köln, Deutschland; 5Universitäres Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Hamburg Hamburg, Deutschland

Objectives

Minimally invasive totally endoscopic mitral valve repair (TE-MVR) using 3D visualization is a well-established approach for treating primary mitral regurgitation (PMR). In cases of Barlow’s disease (BD), a complex subset of PMR involving extensive leaflet and annular pathology, TE-MVR poses additional challenges and remains to be investigated.

 

Methods

From 2012 to 2022, 131 consecutive patients with severe MR due to BD underwent TE-MVR at our center (BD group). Baseline characteristics, surgical techniques, short- and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed, and compared to 304 patients with isolated posterior mitral leaflet prolapse (PML group).

 

Results

Patients in BD group were younger (BD vs. PML group: 53.0±13.4 vs. 59.9±10.7 years, p<0.001) and more frequently female (46.6% vs. 31.6%, p=0.002). Prevalence of comorbidities and NYHA functional class were similar between groups. Mitral valve replacement was necessary in one patient in each group (0.8% vs. 0.3%, p=0.512) and rates of conversion to sternotomy were comparable (3.1% vs. 1.6%, p=0.344). Cross-clamp time was longer in the BD group (110.8±38.3 vs. 103.1±32.2 min, p=0.046), whereas cardiopulmonary bypass and procedure times were similar. Mean annuloplasty ring size was larger in the BD group (36.3±2.6 vs. 33.0±2.7 mm, p<0.001). For BD group, multiple techniques were used: neochordae to PML (55.0%), neochordae to AML (31.3%), leaflet resection (31.3%), and Alfieri stitch (14.5%) whereas 83.8% of patients in the PML group received annuloplasty and neochordae to PML only. There were no significant differences regarding intra- and postoperative complications, including re-thoracotomy ((6.9% vs.5.0%, p=0.427), low-output syndrome (3.8% vs. 2.0 %, p=0.296), ECMO use (1.5% vs. 1.0%, p=0.640), and atrial fibrillation (30.0% vs. 38.9%, p=0.076). Of note, the incidence of perioperative systolic anterior motion (SAM) was similar between groups (3.1% vs. 1.0%, p=0.205). Thirty-day mortality rates were similar between groups (0.8% vs. 0.3%, p=0.510). Long-term survival at 10 years was similar between groups (90.3±4.8% vs. 91.9±1.5%, p=0.879), as was freedom from re-operation at 10 years (95.5±2.4% vs. 97.8±0.9%, p=0.433).

 

Conclusion

TE-MVR in patients with complex BD is safe and effective. In comparison to isolated PML prolapse repair, similarly favorable short- and long-term results were achieved, utilizing various MV repair techniques.