Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV) and valve‐in‐ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo‐MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo‐MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty‐two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo‐MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30‐day mortality. MVIV resulted in >95% procedural success with 30‐day and 1‐year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%–6%), valve migration (0%–9%), and residual regurgitation (0%–6%). Comparisons of redo‐MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year, P =0.92), albeit higher rates of major bleeding and arrhythmias with redo‐MVR. MVIR resulted in 0% to 34% mortality at 1 year, whereas both redo‐MVr and MVR for failed repairs were performed with minimal mortality and durable long‐term results. MVIV is therefore a viable alternative to redo‐MVR for structural valve degeneration, whereas redo‐MVr or redo‐MVR is preferred for failed MVr given the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, not all patients will be candidates for MVIV/MVIR because anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from adequately addressing the underlying pathology.

No abstract

Mitral annular calcification with mitral valve disease is a challenging problem that could necessitate surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR). Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is emerging as a feasible alternative in high‐risk patients with appropriate anatomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to December 25, 2019 for studies discussing SMVR or TMVR in patients with mitral annular calcification; 27 of 1539 articles were selected for final review. TMVR was used in 15 studies. Relevant data were available on 82 patients who underwent hybrid transatrial TMVR, and 354 patients who underwent transapical or transseptal TMVR. Outcomes on SMVR were generally reported as small case series (447 patients from 11 studies); however, 1 large study recently reported outcomes in 9551 patients. Patients who underwent TMVR had a shorter median follow‐up of 9 to 12 months (range, in‐hospital‒19 months) compared with patients with SMVR (54 months; range, in‐hospital‒120 months). Overall, those undergoing TMVR were older and had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores. SMVR showed a wide range of early (0%–27%; median 6.3%) and long‐term mortality (0%–65%; median at 1 year, 15.8%; 5 years, 38.8%, 10 years, 62.4%). The median in‐hospital, 30‐day, and 1‐year mortality rates were 16.7%, 22.7%, and 43%, respectively, for transseptal/transapical TMVR, and 9.5%, 20.0%, and 40%, respectively, for transatrial TMVR. Mitral annular calcification is a complex disease and TMVR, with a versatile option of transatrial approach in patients with challenging anatomy, offers a promising alternative to SMVR in high‐risk patients. However, further studies are needed to improve technology, patient selection, operative expertise, and long‐term outcomes.

Purpose of review The aim of the article is to discuss different therapeutic options for patients with severe mitral valve dysfunction because of mitral annular calcification (MAC), including mitral valve repair, conventional mitral valve replacement, percutaneous transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), and hybrid procedures. Recent findings Optimal management of severe mitral valve disease because of MAC remains challenging. Various ‘resect’ or ‘respect’ repair strategies have been standardized and are applicable in eligible patients. Mitral valve replacement with a standard surgical bioprosthesis is often possible in nonrepair candidates, especially with noncircumferential MAC. TMVR has evolved as a feasible option for anatomically and/or clinically prohibitive open-surgery cases, with the caveat of strict anatomic eligibility criteria. Hybrid TMVR provides the advantages of both open-surgery and TMVR and has emerged as a promising alternative in select patients. Summary Surgical management of MAC and severe mitral valve disease continues to evolve. The addition of transcatheter valve options may benefit many patients previously considered inoperable and are now candidates for intervention. This review will summarize state-of-the-art management options for patients with MAC.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) carries significant morbidity/mortality. Our review aims to compare incidence, predisposing factors, microbiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of PVE in surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR patients. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2020. Key words were indexed for original reports, clinical studies, and reviews. Reports were evaluated by 2 authors against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they reported incidence and outcomes related to surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE and excluded if they were published pre‐2015 or included a small population. We followed the Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines for all stages of the design and implementation. Study quality was based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Thirty‐three studies with 311 to 41 025 patients contained relevant information. The majority found no significant difference in incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE (reported as 0.3%–1.2% per patient‐year versus 0.6%–3.4%), but there were key differences in pathogenesis. TAVR has a specific set of infection risks related to entry site, procedure, and device, including nonstandardized protocols for infection control, valve crimping injury, paravalvular leak, neo‐leaflet stress, intact/calcified native leaflets, and intracardiac hardware. With the expansion of TAVR to lower risk and younger patients, a better understanding of pathogenesis, patient presentation, and guideline‐directed treatment is paramount. When operative intervention is necessary, mortality remains high at 20% to 30%. Unique TAVR infection risks present opportunities for PVE prevention, therefore, further investigation is imperative.