A review regarding the article 'Comparative efficacy and safety of mitral valve repair versus mitral valve replacement in Rheumatic heart disease: A high-value care systematic review and meta-analysis'.

Rheumatic heart disease remains a major cause of cardiovascular death worldwide. Limited real-world nationwide data are available to compare the long-term outcomes between mitral valve repair and replacement in rheumatic heart disease. For patients with RHD, MVP is the superior choice of surgical intervention owing to better long-term survival, reduced incidence of early mortality and thromboembolic events. However, it entails higher chances of re-operation at follow-up at four, eight and twelve years. Although feasible, surgeons may opt for MVR in patients with a worse prognosis. Whereas degenerative mitral repair for severe MR has been proven superior to replacement, the optimal operative strategy for mitral RHD remains unclear. In developing countries, mitral RHD commonly develops in young patients, predominantly consists of MR rather than MS, and occurs more frequently than in the United States. In addition, the predominant MR etiology (rather than MS), relatively early intervention in the RHD timeline, and variation in Carpentier MR types among developing world populations further make these rheumatic MVs more amenable to repair than replacement. Patients should be carefully selected for mitral valve repair because of its higher reoperation rate, particularly those with previous percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy. Careful assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification to determine mitral repair or replacement was associated with improved outcomes. This decision-making strategy may alter the threshold for rheumatic mitral replacement in the current valve-in-valve era.