Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

A Simplified Stepwise Approach to Echo Guidance during Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair
Published on: October 16, 2021
The relation between location of paravalvular leakage and time to reoperation after mitral valve replacement
Mehmet Yanartaş1, Serdar Demir, Ayşe Baysal
1Clinics of Cardiovascular Surgery Kartal Koşuyolu Yüksek İhtisas Education and Training Hospital; İstanbul-Turkey. elnur17@yahoo.com.
Objective:
A relation between the location of the paravalvular leakage (PVL) and time to reoperation after mitral mechanical valve replacement was investigated.
Methods:
In an observational retrospective study plan, from 59 patients who underwent reoperation only 47 patients having clinical and echocardiographic follow-up for five years were included into study. Depending on echocardiographic evaluation of location of leak, patients were divided into Group 1 (Leaflet) and Group 2 (Commissural). Demographics, preoperative variables, causes of reoperation, the time period between diagnosis of PVL and reoperation were recorded. Unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparison of variables between groups.
Results:
A PVL was diagnosed after a median time of 180 days (range: 1 day-28 years) after the first mitral valve replacement. The median follow-up period was 5 years (range; 1-16 years). Age, gender, left ventricular ejection function, number and size of leaks did not differ between groups (p>0.05). The time period between diagnosis and reoperation time was longer in Group 1 in comparison to Group 2 (39.0 ± 9.9 vs. 19.5 ± 12.8 months, p=0.002). The 30-day mortality for valve reoperation was 4.3% (2/47). In Group 1, 2 patients (2/21, 9.8%) died whereas, no death was observed in Group 2 (0/26, 0%) (p=0.002).
Conclusion:
The time period between diagnosis and reoperation was longer in leaflet leak group in comparison to commissural leak group. We suggest echocardiographic evaluation should include location of the paravalvular leakage during follow-up of patients with PVL after mitral valve replacement.
Insights
The location of paravalvular leakage (PVL) after mitral valve replacement impacts reoperation time. Leaflet PVL leads to longer intervals before reoperation compared to commissural PVL.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Cardiac Surgery
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Paravalvular leakage (PVL) is a complication after mitral valve replacement.
- The location of PVL may influence clinical outcomes and the need for reoperation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the relationship between the location of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and the time to reoperation following mitral mechanical valve replacement.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective observational study of 47 patients with clinical and echocardiographic follow-up for five years.
- Patients were categorized into Leaflet (Group 1) and Commissural (Group 2) PVL based on echocardiography.
- Demographics, preoperative variables, reoperation causes, and time from PVL diagnosis to reoperation were analyzed.
Main Results:
- PVL was diagnosed at a median of 180 days post-mitral valve replacement; median follow-up was 5 years.
- No significant differences in age, gender, ejection function, or leak characteristics between groups.
- Time to reoperation was significantly longer for leaflet PVL (39.0 months) versus commissural PVL (19.5 months) (p=0.002).
- 30-day mortality for reoperation was 4.3%, with higher mortality in the leaflet PVL group (9.8% vs. 0%, p=0.002).
Conclusions:
- The time interval from diagnosis to reoperation is longer for leaflet PVL compared to commissural PVL.
- Echocardiographic assessment of PVL location is crucial for patient follow-up after mitral valve replacement.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Regurgitation I: Introduction
Mitral Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management

