Journal of cardiac surgery · 2022
The impact of concomitant mitral valve intervention on outcomes of aortic root replacement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Imielski Bartlomiej R, Soletti Giovanni, Rahouma Mohamed, Gaudino Mario F L, Lau Christopher, Iannacone Erin M, Girardi Leonard N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of concomitant mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR) at the time of aortic root replacement (ARR).
METHODS: We queried our aortic database for consecutive patients undergoing ARR in combination with MVr or MVR from 1997 to 2021. Patients undergoing valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) were excluded. We compared operative mortality (OM) and a composite of major adverse events (MAE) in those undergoing CVG both with (Group 2) and without a concomitant MV procedure (Group 1). We also analyzed outcomes between patients undergoing MV repair versus MV replacement.
RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent ARR with concomitant MVr (29/47.5%) or MVR (32/52.5%). Compared to patients in Group 2 (n = 955), those in Group 1 presented with worse NYHA class, lower ejection fraction, higher rate of connective tissue disease, and underwent more frequently urgent/emergent procedures. Group 1 had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (8/61(13%) vs 51/955(5%), p = .03). There was no difference in operative mortality between the two groups (0/61(0%) vs. 3/955(0.3%), p = 1). Compared to the ARR + MVR subgroup, the ARR + MVr subgroup had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (5/29(17.2%) vs. 3/32(9.4%), p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified MVr (OR 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.03;7.48], p = 0.04) as an independent predictor of MAE.
CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality remained low in both groups. The addition of MVR/MVr to composite valve-graft replacement of the aortic root does not increase OM in experienced hands. The incidence of MAEs was higher in those undergoing MVr but may be a reflection of greater preoperative comorbidity rather than issues related to a more complex operation.
METHODS: We queried our aortic database for consecutive patients undergoing ARR in combination with MVr or MVR from 1997 to 2021. Patients undergoing valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) were excluded. We compared operative mortality (OM) and a composite of major adverse events (MAE) in those undergoing CVG both with (Group 2) and without a concomitant MV procedure (Group 1). We also analyzed outcomes between patients undergoing MV repair versus MV replacement.
RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent ARR with concomitant MVr (29/47.5%) or MVR (32/52.5%). Compared to patients in Group 2 (n = 955), those in Group 1 presented with worse NYHA class, lower ejection fraction, higher rate of connective tissue disease, and underwent more frequently urgent/emergent procedures. Group 1 had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (8/61(13%) vs 51/955(5%), p = .03). There was no difference in operative mortality between the two groups (0/61(0%) vs. 3/955(0.3%), p = 1). Compared to the ARR + MVR subgroup, the ARR + MVr subgroup had higher incidence of postoperative MAE (5/29(17.2%) vs. 3/32(9.4%), p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified MVr (OR 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.03;7.48], p = 0.04) as an independent predictor of MAE.
CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality remained low in both groups. The addition of MVR/MVr to composite valve-graft replacement of the aortic root does not increase OM in experienced hands. The incidence of MAEs was higher in those undergoing MVr but may be a reflection of greater preoperative comorbidity rather than issues related to a more complex operation.