Comparison of Pericardial and Prosthetic Rings for Mitral Repair: Are Pericardial Rings Durable in the Mid- to Long-Term Follow Up?

Background: While prosthetic rings are commonly used for mitral valve repairs, autologous pericardium is an alternative ring material that can be used in these procedures. In this report, we aim to present a comparison of two types of rings used for mitral repair.

Methods: Between January 2005 and January 2009, 107 patients who underwent mitral valve repair surgery were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the type of ring that was used for mitral annular stabilization. Glutaraldehyde-treated pericardial rings were used for 31 patients (group 1), whereas prosthetic rings were used for 76 patients (group 2). Survival, freedom from reoperation, recurrent mitral regurgitation, and the effects of rheumatic mitral disease on these parameters were evaluated and compared for both groups.

Results: Follow-up time for our cohort was 4.24±0.4 years. There were four and seven late mortalities in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and five reoperations in each group. There was no significant difference between the groups, in terms of survival, freedom from reoperation, and recurrent mitral regurgitation (log-rank analyses for both groups were P = 0.777, P = 0.346, and P = 0.781, respectively). There was no significant difference in freedom from reoperation and recurrent mitral regurgitation for both groups, in terms of underlying rheumatic valvular disease and other types of pathology.

Conclusion: Pericardial ring annuloplasty shows to be a considerable alternative technique for mitral valve repair procedures in the mid- to long-term follow up. Rheumatic mitral valves had poor outcomes, when compared with other types of structural valvular pathologies in cases where pericardial rings were used in the repair procedure.