Recent Advances on the Prevention and Management of Rheumatic Heart Disease

- Minimally invasive.

- Faster recovery compared to surgical options.

- Suitable for severe mitral stenosis with favorable valve morphology.

- Lower early mortality rates compared to replacement.

- Preserves the patient’s native valve and ventricular function.

- Enhances long-term survival.

- Avoids long-term anticoagulation therapy, especially in pregnancies.

- Standardized surgical procedure with broad indications. Lower rate of reoperation compared to MVP.

- Durable solution for severely damaged valves.

- Less effective in extremely severe cases or multivalvular diseases.

- Risk of restenosis over time.

- Long-term outcomes remain controversial, with possible need for reinterventions.

- Not always feasible for severely damaged valves.

- Requires long-term anticoagulation therapy for mechanical valves.

- Bioprosthetic valves have limited durability, especially for younger patients, and may require replacement.

- Higher risk of thrombotic complications in low-resource settings with poor INR monitoring.

- Patients with severe mitral stenosis but without significant mitral regurgitation or heavy valve calcification.

- Patients with moderate to severe valve disease where repair is feasible, especially young patients or those needing preservation of valve function.

- Patients with severe valve damage unsuitable for repair, or those able to maintain effective anticoagulation management for mechanical valves.