Mitral valve repair, how to make volume not matter; techniques, tendencies, and outcomes, a single center experience

Background Recent evidence has showed us that quality of mitral valve repair is strongly related to volume. However, this study shows how low-volume centers can achieve results in mitral valve repair surgery comparable to those reported by referral centers. It compares outcomes of mitral valve repair using resection versus noresection techniques, tendencies, and rates of repair. Methods Between 2004 and 2017, 200 patients underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease at Fundación Cardioinfantil-Institute of Cardiology. Fifty-eight (29%) patients underwent resection and 142 (71%) noresection. Results Follow-up was 94% complete, mean follow-up time was 2.3 years. There was no 30-day mortality. Five patients required mitral valve replacement after an average of 5.3 years (Resection = 2; Noresection = 3). Freedom from severe mitral regurgitation was 98% at 6.6 years of follow-up for the noresection group, and 92.5% at 7 years for the resection group (log rank: 0.888). At last follow-up, two patients died of cardiovascular disease related to mitral valve, 181 patients (86%) showed no or grade I mitral regurgitation. Patients with previous myocardial infarction had increased risk of recurrent mitral regurgitation ( p = 0,030). Within four years, we inverted the proportion of mitral valve replacement and repair, and in 2016 we achieved a mitral valve repair rate of 96%. Conclusion This study suggests that resection and noresection techniques are safe and effective. Recurrence of severe mitral regurgitation and need for mitral valve replacement are rare. We show that low-volume centers can achieve results comparable to those reported worldwide by establishing a mitral valve repair team. We encourage hospitals to follow this model of mitral valve repair program to decrease the proportion of mitral valve replacement, while increasing mitral valve repair.