ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Minimally invasive mitral valve repair revisited: Respect or Resect? Amidst competing risks.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMitral valve repair (MVr) remains the preferred surgical treatment for degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), offering superior long-term outcomes compared with mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the optimal surgical strategy-leaflet preservation with or without neochordal implantation ('Respect') versus leaflet resection ('Resect'), or a combination thereof ('Both')-remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to compare the longer-term outcomes of these techniques in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, in a real-world cohort encompassing anatomically complex valve pathology.
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective cohort study, 447 consecutive patients who underwent isolated MVr via right lateral mini-thoracotomy between 2006 and 2014 were included and analyzed. Patients were stratified according to the surgical repair technique ('Respect', 'Resect', or 'Both'). Primary endpoints were valve performance measures: freedom from mitral valve-related reoperation and mitral regurgitation severity during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Competing risk regression (Fine-Gray) was applied to account for death as a competing event.
resultsOf the total cohort, 293 patients (65.5%) underwent MVr using the 'Respect' technique, 109 (24.4%) underwent leaflet resection ('Resect'), and 45 (10.1%) received a combined approach ('Both'). In-hospital mortality was 0.7%, and cerebrovascular events occurred in 0.9% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 5 years, durable mitral valve competence was present in 88.4% of patients (MR grade ≤ I). Five-year freedom from mitral valve-related reoperation was 93.3%, with no significant differences between techniques (P = 0.647). Five-year survival was 94.0%, and 5-year freedom from MACCE was 96.8%, with no statistically significant differences between techniques. Competing risk analysis (death as competing event) confirmed the absence of significant intergroup differences.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that all three techniques yield equally favorable longer-term outcomes in a minimally invasive setting, extending even to anatomically complex degenerative pathologies such as Barlow's disease, bileaflet involvement, and anterior leaflet prolapse. A morphology-guided, individualized surgical approach emerges as a reliable and durable standard for the management of DMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.