Pacemaker implantation after concomitant tricuspid valve repair in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: Results from the Mini-Mitral International Registry

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Gloria Faerber - , Jena University Hospital (Author)
  • Paolo Berretta - , Marche Polytechnic University (Author)
  • Tom C Nguyen - , University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (Author)
  • Manuel Wilbring - , Heart Center Dresden University Hospital (Author)
  • Joseph Lamelas - , University of Miami (Author)
  • Pierluigi Stefano - , Careggi University Hospital (Author)
  • Jörg Kempfert - , Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin (Author)
  • Mauro Rinaldi - , University of Turin (Author)
  • Davide Pacini - , Sant’Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic (Author)
  • Antonios Pitsis - , European Interbalkan Medical Center Thessaloniki (Author)
  • Marc Gerdisch - , Franciscan Health Indianapolis (Author)
  • Nguyen Hoang Dinh - , University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City (Author)
  • Frank Van Praet - , OLV Hospital Aalst (Author)
  • Loris Salvador - , San Bortolo Hospital (Author)
  • Tristan Yan - , Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Author)
  • Nikolaos Bonaros - , Innsbruck Medical University (Author)
  • Antonio Fiore - , Hôpital Henri Mondor (Author)
  • Torsten Doenst - , Jena University Hospital (Author)
  • Marco Di Eusanio - , Marche Polytechnic University (Author)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Randomized evidence suggests a high risk of pacemaker implantation for patients undergoing mitral valve (MV) surgery with concomitant tricuspid valve repair (cTVR). We investigated the impact of cTVR on outcomes in the Mini-Mitral International Registry.

METHODS: From 2015 to 2021, 7513 patients underwent minimally invasive MV with or without cTVR in 17 international centers (MV: n = 5609, cTVR: n = 1113). Propensity matching generated 1110 well-balanced pairs. Multivariable analysis was applied.

RESULTS: Patients with cTVR were older and had more comorbidities. Propensity matching eliminated most differences except for more TR in patients who underwent cTVR (77.2% vs 22.1% MV, P < .001). Mean matched age was 71 years, and 45% were male. European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was still 2.68% (interquartile range [IQR], 0.80-2.63) vs 1.9% (IQR, 1.12-3.9) in matched MV (P < .001). MV replacement (30%) and atrial fibrillation surgery (32%) were similar in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass (161 minutes [IQR, 133-203] vs MV: 130 minutes [IQR, 103-166]; P < .001) and crossclamp times (93 minutes [IQR, 66-123] vs MV: 83 minutes [IQR, 64-107]; P < .001) were longer with cTVR. Although in-hospital mortality was similar (cTVR: 3.3% vs MV: 2.2%; P = .5), postoperative pacemaker implantations (9% vs MV: 5.8%; P = .02), low cardiac output syndrome (7.7% vs MV: 4.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (13.8% vs MV: 10%; P = .01) were more frequent with cTVR. cTVR eliminated relevant TR in most patients (greater-than-moderate TR: 6.8%). Multivariable analysis identified MV replacement, atrial fibrillation, and cTVR as risk factors of postoperative pacemaker implantation.

CONCLUSIONS: cTVR in minimally invasive MV surgery is an independent risk factor for pacemaker implantation in this international registry. It is also associated with more bleeding, low output syndrome, and acute kidney injury. It remains unclear whether technical or patient factors (or both) explain these differences.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)64-71
Number of pages8
JournalJTCVS open
Volume17
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2024
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMedCentral PMC10897665
Scopus 85180310545