Aims: Recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR) has been reported after mitral valve repair for functional MR. However, the impact of recurrent MR on long-term survival remains poorly defined. In the present study, mortality-adjusted recurrent MR rates, the clinical impact of recurrent MR and its determinants were studied in patients after mitral valve repair with revascularization for functional MR in the setting of ischaemic heart disease. Methods and results: Long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcome was evaluated in 261 consecutive patients after restrictive mitral annuloplasty and revascularization for moderate to severe functional MR, between 2000 and 2014. The cumulative incidence of recurrent MR ≥ Grade 2, assessed by competing risk analysis, was 9.6 ± 1.8% at 1-year, 20.3 ± 2.5% at 5-year, and 27.6 ± 2.9% at 10-year follow-up. Cumulative survival was 85.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 81.0–90.0] at 1-year, 67.3% (95% CI 61.1–72.6%) at 5-year, and 46.1% (95% CI 39.4–52.6%) at 10-year follow-up. Age, preoperative New York Heart Association Class III or IV, a history of renal failure, and recurrence of MR expressed as a time-dependent variable [HR 3.28 (1.87–5.75), P < 0.001], were independently associated with an increased mortality risk. Female gender, a history of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, a preoperative QRS duration ≥120 ms, a higher preoperative MR grade, and a higher indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume were independently associated with an increased likelihood of recurrent MR. Conclusion: Mitral valve repair for functional ischaemic MR resulted in a low incidence of recurrent MR with favourable clinical outcome up to 10 years after surgery. Presence of recurrent MR at any moment after surgery proved to be independently associated with an increased risk for mortality.

We assessed the safety, effectiveness and haemodynamic performance of a new bovine stented aortic valve bioprosthesis (Avalus™). The PERIGON Pivotal Trial is a prospective, non-randomized, multicentre study. Subjects had symptomatic moderate or severe aortic stenosis or chronic, severe aortic regurgitation. Death, valve-related adverse events (AEs), functional recovery and haemodynamic performance were assessed at discharge, 3–6 months and 1 year. The primary analysis compared ‘late’ (>30 days post-implant) linearized rates of valve-related thromboembolism, thrombosis, all and major haemorrhage, all and major paravalvular leak (PVL) and endocarditis after implantation with objective performance criteria (OPC) for AEs, in accordance with EN ISO 5840:2009. We hypothesized that the upper 95% confidence bounds of the true linearized AE rates would be ≥ 2 × OPC; rejection of the null hypothesis would demonstrate that these rates were below acceptable rates. The analysis was required to include at least 150 patients followed to 1 year and 400 valve-years. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was also performed. Total number of valve-years was 459.5 (n = 686). Linearized rates were <2 × OPC for death and valve-related thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, all and major PVL, and endocarditis, but ≥2 × OPC for all and major haemorrhage. Survival at 1 year (n = 270) was 96.4%. Patients showed good functional recovery, and haemodynamic performance was within expected range. This analysis demonstrated a good safety profile and clinical effectiveness of the Avalus valve except for bleeding rates. The linearized rates of all and major haemorrhage may be related to long-term anticoagulation for non-valvular indications and the length of follow-up of this cohort. NCT02088554 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Our goal was to evaluate the outcome of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and to compare the outcomes to those of patients having composite valve–graft conduit aortic root replacement (CVG-ARR) in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm ± valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients. The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients, and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria included aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR. We matched 218 patients with CVG-ARR to 654 patients with VSRR (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both groups; interquartile range 1–5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% of those who had VSRR versus 2.3% in those who had CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94–97%] at 5 years in patients who had VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82–92%) in those who had CVG-ARR; P = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95–98%) with VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91–99%) with CVG-ARR (P = 0.98). Additionally, there were more thromboembolic, endocarditis and bleeding events in the patients who had CVG-ARR (P = 0.02). This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related events are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centres.

Mitral valve repair in native active infective endocarditis is technically challenging. The survival benefit over valve replacement is poorly established and possibly absent because of the high risk of repair failure and reoperation. In this study, we explore the results of our structured approach in these patients. Between January 2000 and January 2017, 149 patients underwent surgery for native mitral infective endocarditis. Among them, 97 (66%) patients underwent valve repair and 52 (34%) underwent valve replacement. Our structured approach consisted of early surgery, radical resection of infected tissue, liberal use of prosthetic materials and ‘patch’ repair techniques. A critical assessment of expected repair durability was made intraoperatively and repair was not performed if concerns of long-term durability existed. To study the effects of valve repair on overall survival, landmark analysis was performed. In-hospital mortality was 15.4% (14 repair vs 9 replacement patients; P = 0.642). There were no residual infective endocarditis cases or early reoperations. On Cox proportional hazards analysis, valve replacement was not inferior to repair within 1-year post-surgery [hazard ratio (HR) 1.134, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.504–2.540; P = 0.76]. Beyond 1 year post-surgery, replacement was associated with decreased survival (HR 2.534, 95% CI 1.002–6.406; P = 0.049). There were no differences in freedom from recurrent infective endocarditis (P = 0.47) and mitral valve reintervention (P = 0.52). Active mitral valve endocarditis remains a complex disease with significant early and late morbidity and mortality. A structured approach allows valve repair in two-thirds of patients. Clinical results could be improved by focussing on early surgery, prior to extensive valve destruction, to enable durable repairs and improve late outcomes.