Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease

Objective: To further the understanding of the factors influencing outcome following rheumatic heart disease (RHD) related mitral valve surgery, which globally remains an important cause of heart disease and a particular problem in Indigenous Australians. Methods: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Data...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Russell, E., Walsh, W., Reid, Christopher, Tran, L., Brown, A., Bennetts, J., Baker, R., Tam, R., Maguire, G.
Format: Journal Article
Published: 2017
Online Access:http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1044897
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/54359
_version_ 1848759352299618304
author Russell, E.
Walsh, W.
Reid, Christopher
Tran, L.
Brown, A.
Bennetts, J.
Baker, R.
Tam, R.
Maguire, G.
author_facet Russell, E.
Walsh, W.
Reid, Christopher
Tran, L.
Brown, A.
Bennetts, J.
Baker, R.
Tam, R.
Maguire, G.
author_sort Russell, E.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Objective: To further the understanding of the factors influencing outcome following rheumatic heart disease (RHD) related mitral valve surgery, which globally remains an important cause of heart disease and a particular problem in Indigenous Australians. Methods: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Database was utilised to assess outcomes following mitral valve repair and replacement for RHD and non-RHD valve disease. The association with aetiology, demographics, comorbidities, preoperative status and operative procedure was evaluated. Results: Mitral valve repairs and replacements undertaken in Australia were analysed from 119 and 1078 RHD surgical procedures and 3279 and 2400 non-RHD procedures, respectively. RHD mitral valve repair, compared with replacement, resulted in a slightly shorter hospital stay and more reoperation for valve dysfunction, but no difference in 30-day survival. In unadjusted survival analysis to 5 years, RHD mitral valve repair and replacement were no different (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), non-RHD repair was superior to replacement (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), RHD and non-RHD repair were no different (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7), and RHD replacement was superior to non-RHD (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9). None of these differences persisted in adjusted analyses and there was no difference in long-term survival for Indigenous Australians. Conclusion: In this large prospective cohort study we have demonstrated that adjusted long-term survival following RHD mitral valve repair surgery in Australia is no different to replacement and no different to non-RHD. Interpretation of valve surgery outcome requires careful consideration of patient factors that may also influence survival.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T09:58:31Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-54359
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T09:58:31Z
publishDate 2017
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-543592020-09-07T05:21:45Z Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease Russell, E. Walsh, W. Reid, Christopher Tran, L. Brown, A. Bennetts, J. Baker, R. Tam, R. Maguire, G. Objective: To further the understanding of the factors influencing outcome following rheumatic heart disease (RHD) related mitral valve surgery, which globally remains an important cause of heart disease and a particular problem in Indigenous Australians. Methods: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Database was utilised to assess outcomes following mitral valve repair and replacement for RHD and non-RHD valve disease. The association with aetiology, demographics, comorbidities, preoperative status and operative procedure was evaluated. Results: Mitral valve repairs and replacements undertaken in Australia were analysed from 119 and 1078 RHD surgical procedures and 3279 and 2400 non-RHD procedures, respectively. RHD mitral valve repair, compared with replacement, resulted in a slightly shorter hospital stay and more reoperation for valve dysfunction, but no difference in 30-day survival. In unadjusted survival analysis to 5 years, RHD mitral valve repair and replacement were no different (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), non-RHD repair was superior to replacement (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), RHD and non-RHD repair were no different (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7), and RHD replacement was superior to non-RHD (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9). None of these differences persisted in adjusted analyses and there was no difference in long-term survival for Indigenous Australians. Conclusion: In this large prospective cohort study we have demonstrated that adjusted long-term survival following RHD mitral valve repair surgery in Australia is no different to replacement and no different to non-RHD. Interpretation of valve surgery outcome requires careful consideration of patient factors that may also influence survival. 2017 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/54359 10.1136/heartasia-2017-010916 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1044897 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1080401 restricted
spellingShingle Russell, E.
Walsh, W.
Reid, Christopher
Tran, L.
Brown, A.
Bennetts, J.
Baker, R.
Tam, R.
Maguire, G.
Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title_full Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title_fullStr Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title_short Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
title_sort outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease
url http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1044897
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1044897
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/54359