Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026

A Simplified Stepwise Approach to Echo Guidance during Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair
Published on: October 16, 2021
Influence of concomitant CABG and urgent/emergent status on mitral valve replacement surgery
V H Thourani1, W S Weintraub, J M Craver
1Carlyle Fraser Heart Center, Department of Surgery, Emory Center of Outcomes Research, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Insights
Adding coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to mitral valve replacement (MVR) increases risks and costs. Urgent or emergent MVR also elevates mortality and resource use, necessitating careful patient selection.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Cardiac Surgery Outcomes
- Health Economics
Background:
- Mitral valve replacement (MVR) is a common cardiac procedure.
- Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is sometimes performed with MVR.
- Understanding the impact of CABG on MVR outcomes is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare outcomes and resource utilization in patients undergoing MVR with and without CABG.
- To analyze the influence of elective versus urgent/emergent status on MVR outcomes.
- To identify factors affecting long-term mortality after MVR.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of 1,844 patients undergoing primary MVR between 1980 and 1997.
- Patients were categorized into four groups: elective MVR with/without CABG and urgent/emergent MVR with/without CABG.
- Data collected included length of stay, in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and hospital costs.
Main Results:
- MVR with CABG showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality (elective: 14%, urgent/emergent: 41%) compared to MVR alone (elective: 6%, urgent/emergent: 20%).
- Long-term survival rates were lower for patients undergoing MVR with CABG (elective: 32%, urgent/emergent: 28%) versus MVR alone (elective: 51%, urgent/emergent: 46%).
- Hospital costs were significantly higher for elective MVR with CABG ($33,216) compared to MVR alone ($23,890).
Conclusions:
- Concomitant CABG and urgent/emergent status significantly increase morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with MVR.
- Careful evaluation of benefits versus resource utilization is essential for high-risk MVR patients.
- The findings highlight the importance of patient selection for MVR procedures, especially when combined with CABG.
Background:
Outcomes and resource utilization of patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were reviewed.
Methods:
Data for 1,844 patients undergoing isolated primary MVR at Emory University Hospitals between 1980 and 1997 were recorded prospectively in a computerized database.
Results:
The four groups included patients undergoing elective MVR with (n = 360) or without CABG (n = 1332) and urgent/emergent MVR with (n = 66) or without CABG (n = 86). Length of stay was significantly higher in patients undergoing elective MVR with CABG (15 days) than in those without CABG (11 days) but was not significantly different in patients undergoing urgent/emergent MVR with CABG (17 days) than in those without CABG (19 days). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher for patients undergoing elective (14%) or urgent/emergent (41%) MVR with CABG than in those undergoing MVR without CABG (elective:6%; urgent/emergent:20%). The 19-year survival rate was 32% for patients undergoing elective MVR with CABG compared with 51% for those without CABG and 28% for patients undergoing urgent/emergent MVR with CABG compared with 46% for those without CABG. Multivariate correlates of long-term mortality included older age, concomitant CABG, and urgent/emergent status. Hospital costs were significantly higher for patients undergoing elective MVR with ($33,216) than for those without ($23,890) CABG. No significant difference in cost were noted between patients undergoing urgent/emergent MVR with ($40,535) and without ($31,981) CABG.
Conclusions:
The addition of CABG or urgent/emergent status to patients undergoing MVR significantly increases morbidity, mortality, and costs. Careful scrutiny of the benefits versus resource utilization is required for patients undergoing high risk MVR.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation IV: Nursing Management
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis IV: Nursing Management
Cardiomyopathy VII: Pre and Post Operative Nursing Management

