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.