Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024
NSTEMI and Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: Incidence and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes with Respect to Management Strategy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vyas Pooja, Dake Radhakishan, Kanabar Kewal, Patel Iva, Mishra Ashish, Sharma Vishal, Nathwani Tirth, Parwani Kunal, Rathod Mital
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) in patients of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is a debated topic.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long term outcome on patients with NSTEMI and IMR, particularly emphasizing the comparison of treatments in those with moderate to severe MR.
METHODS: We enrolled patients with NSTEMI and classified non/trivial to mild regurgitation as insignificant IMR and moderate to severe regurgitation as significant IMR. Furthermore, patients with substantial IMR were assessed for long-term clinical outcomes with respect to different management strategies. A test was considered statistically significant based on the probability value p<0.05.
RESULTS: From a total of 4,189 patients of NSTEMI, significant IMR was found in 7.21% of patients. A significantly higher number of patients with death (1.21% vs. 13.24%, p<0.0001), cardiogenic shock (0.46% vs. 13.24%, p<0.0001) and heart failure (1.03% vs. 11.59%, p<0.0001) were found during hospitalization in patients with significant IMR. At a 2-year follow-up, a higher event rate was observed in the significant IMR group. Patients with significant IMR re-vascularized either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or CABG+ mitral valve (MV) surgery showed substantial improvement in MR grade ( 32.65% vs. 6% vs. 16.98%, p<0.0001) and LVEF (27.55% vs. 1% vs. 1.89%, p<0.0001) at 1 year follow up and significantly improved outcomes were identified compared to refused revascularization and medical management group with (-5.10% vs. 15% vs. 13.21%, p=0.04) mortality, (-33.67% vs. 61% vs. 73.58%, p<0.0001) readmission, and (-15.31% vs. 27% vs. 33.96%, p=0.01) heart failure at 2 years follow up.
CONCLUSION: Higher mortality and admission rates were observed in patients with significant IMR compared to those with in-significant IMR. Notably, significant IMR patients who underwent PCI, CABG, or CABG+MV surgery showed improved outcomes compared to non-revascularized counterparts.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long term outcome on patients with NSTEMI and IMR, particularly emphasizing the comparison of treatments in those with moderate to severe MR.
METHODS: We enrolled patients with NSTEMI and classified non/trivial to mild regurgitation as insignificant IMR and moderate to severe regurgitation as significant IMR. Furthermore, patients with substantial IMR were assessed for long-term clinical outcomes with respect to different management strategies. A test was considered statistically significant based on the probability value p<0.05.
RESULTS: From a total of 4,189 patients of NSTEMI, significant IMR was found in 7.21% of patients. A significantly higher number of patients with death (1.21% vs. 13.24%, p<0.0001), cardiogenic shock (0.46% vs. 13.24%, p<0.0001) and heart failure (1.03% vs. 11.59%, p<0.0001) were found during hospitalization in patients with significant IMR. At a 2-year follow-up, a higher event rate was observed in the significant IMR group. Patients with significant IMR re-vascularized either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or CABG+ mitral valve (MV) surgery showed substantial improvement in MR grade ( 32.65% vs. 6% vs. 16.98%, p<0.0001) and LVEF (27.55% vs. 1% vs. 1.89%, p<0.0001) at 1 year follow up and significantly improved outcomes were identified compared to refused revascularization and medical management group with (-5.10% vs. 15% vs. 13.21%, p=0.04) mortality, (-33.67% vs. 61% vs. 73.58%, p<0.0001) readmission, and (-15.31% vs. 27% vs. 33.96%, p=0.01) heart failure at 2 years follow up.
CONCLUSION: Higher mortality and admission rates were observed in patients with significant IMR compared to those with in-significant IMR. Notably, significant IMR patients who underwent PCI, CABG, or CABG+MV surgery showed improved outcomes compared to non-revascularized counterparts.